Gosche Mark: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Gosche Mark: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12055] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 The title clause states that the “Act is the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Act”. The original title dealt with “Hours”. Clearly the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee believed and many submitters believed that the title had to be more reflective of the types of things that people should be able to discuss with their employer. After all this is about making arrangements with an employer and having the right purely to request them. 
It is rather amusing to hear that the National Party is in favour of flexible working arrangements but does not think workers should have a right to request them in law. That is beyond belief. National says it is in favour of flexible working arrangements but oh no no way should workers have the right by law to request those from an employer! We heard a great many submissions on this very good bill from people who gave ample evidence of the need for flexible working arrangements. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member was straying a bit there. The title is what we are talking about. The member had been all right up to that point. I am sure that was Tau Henare’s point of order. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: It is just that I have to teach the Opposition how to do this. I have been in title debates many a time and I do not sit down after 2 minutes like the previous member who ran out of any sort of thoughts about how to debate the title. 
The word “Arrangements” is in the title because people want to be able to discuss arrangements. They may involve flexible working hours or they may involve flexible working days. They may involve all sorts of flexibility that the title seeks to actually describe by replacing the word “Hours” with “Arrangements”. I was just trying to illustrate—for the Opposition—that there is a need for a right in law which is why we are changing the employment relations legislation. Obviously we want to describe it in a way such that people will know they can discuss suitable arrangements for work taking into account the family obligations they have as caregivers for their children or for their adult parents or relatives who are disabled. 
So “Arrangements” can mean all sorts of things. They may in fact assist employers greatly to retain skills that would otherwise be lost from the workplace and from businesses. [ 
Interruption 
] Bob Clarkson agrees because he has been on our select committee and he knows the need for an employer to be able to sit down sensibly with a worker to discuss suitable arrangements that would keep that person in his or her job. That member knows from working in the construction industry how difficult it is to hold on to employees when there are other jobs elsewhere that might pay better. But people might stay in Bob Clarkson’s employment if they can in fact get flexible work arrangements. 
 So “Flexible Working Arrangements” is a very good description of this bill. That is why the select committee decided to change the original description which just narrowly described “Hours”. We want to give a clear indication to workers out there that they have the right to request changes to the original set of conditions and terms that were laid down in their agreements with their employers when they started out because their circumstances have changed. People’s circumstances change all the time in life sometimes expectedly and sometimes unexpectedly. 
I cannot imagine why any party in this House would be opposed to this title or to this bill or why any party would not like to alter the title. I am looking forward to Dr Wayne Mapp trying to explain why people should be afraid of this title and this bill which is purely enabling people to arrange things to suit their personal circumstances with their employers and giving them the right to request that their employers listen to those requests. What is scary about that? Why would anybody be afraid of that? It should not be something that anybody should fear. We will probably get a speech from the National side that this is communism. That is what one of those members said when we came to pass a law that dealt with the rights of workers to be paid for the jobs they do. This is just unbelievable! 
Paula Bennett 
: Is this about the title? Come on! 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: There is another National member screeching in the back. She pretends that she knows something about employment. We have yet to see any knowledge come out of her mouth—only vitriol and stupidity.