Dyson Ruth: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12494] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I will take a brief call to follow on from Sue Kedgley and to speak specifically to Supplementary Order Paper 148 in my name in relation to the clause we are currently debating. 
Sue Kedgley referred to two specific parts that I want to draw to the attention of the Committee of the whole House. The first one is the change that I have proposed in terms of replacing “disabled child” and “relative” with the term “any person” so that the primary carer of any person who is dependent is able to apply under this legislation for flexibility in his or her hours. 
I have heard National members say on regular occasions in their contributions that there is no need for legislation—that people currently have the right to request flexibility in their hours. That is absolutely correct and many do. Many who make such a request work it out quite reasonably with their employers. That is good and nothing in this legislation changes that. But we know—as a result of the work we have done with employers and employees—that some need the backing of the legislation. 
This legislation does not require an employer to grant the request; it requires the employer to consider the request fairly. Some employees particularly those in vulnerable situations are not only the primary carer but the only carer of another person. They not only need but frankly deserve the backing of the law so that when they ask for a change in their work hours their responsible employer—because of the law—gives fair consideration to that request. 
Frankly the grounds for declining a request are so extensive that employers would have to be out to lunch if they could not find one that suited them if they really wanted to decline it. But I think most employers will be guided rather than instructed by the legislation. As with many pieces of law that we pass these provisions will lead a change in behaviour so that the law becomes literally unnecessary but we are not at that stage yet. 
The second part of my Supplementary Order Paper that I want to draw attention to is one that Sue Kedgley also referred to and that is changes in the dispute resolution procedure. In the unlikely event of an employer and an employee not getting resolution of a request immediately if there is some dissatisfaction with it the first point of call will be to invite the labour inspector to come into the workplace to get some resolution in the same way as labour inspectors currently do with disputes over wages or time records. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Another bureaucrat. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would have thought Mr Clarkson as an employer in his previous life would understand that. Perhaps he never had any wage disputes. That is fabulous. I am glad that he was such an outstanding employer that he never required assistance from anyone else. But not every employer is as exemplary as Mr Clarkson previously was and no doubt will be when he leaves Parliament after the next election. 
So the first point of call will be the labour inspector then there will be two others if that is not satisfactory. The first is mediation which is already hugely successful not in minor considerations such as this—it is just about a procedure—but in quite complex disputes. It is already hugely successful. If that is not satisfactory the next and final point of determination will be the Employment Relations Authority. There will be no opportunity for a disgruntled dissatisfied employee to go any further than that. 
There did seem to me to be a limit to how many times someone can say to an employer “You must give this request fair consideration. Please do it again.” I do not imagine that these procedures will be needed. I am sure that the majority of employers are short of workers to fill job vacancies because of the success of the last 8 years of legislation passed in this Parliament. More New Zealanders are in paid work than ever before. 
The biggest challenge facing employers is to fill job vacancies. I cannot imagine that those disputes resolution procedures will be needed but if they are needed it will be the labour inspector first. If that does not work the matter will go to mediation. If that is not satisfactory it will go to the authority.