Bennett Paula: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Bennett Paula: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:643;Page:12871] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 It is hard to know whether we should be thanking the Labour Party or actually commiserating with it. At least Labour members are doing Supplementary Order Papers at this stage and will not bring this legislation back to the Committee many times in order to fix their mistakes which they seem to have had to do with other employment legislation that they have put through—I have counted something like 17 times in the last 8 years since the Labour Government put through the Employment Relations Act when it first came to power. 
I suppose that the main concern for National as far as the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is concerned is that we have real fears that once Labour legislates working arrangements are less likely to be flexible than they currently are for those people who actually need them. Once we start to put rules and regulations in place—and we see that Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson has a rule that a person has to be in employment for 6 months before he or she can actually put in an application to his or her employer for flexible working hours—we restrict the freedoms that are currently there and the conversations that take place between employees and employers on a daily basis in New Zealand. Currently without a doubt—and we heard about this in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—flexible working arrangements are in fact happening on a daily basis as people talk to each other and work out what works between them and that process is working. 
Is there room for improvement? Absolutely! The National Party would be the first to put out a challenge to some employers by saying that if they are not getting with the programme and if they are not actually identifying the needs of their employees they should look out in the war for talent. The war for talent that is currently out there is real and extreme and it is getting worse and that has been happening for at least the last 8 years. [ 
Interruption 
] It is my war for talent. I am being mocked slightly on that one and with good reason I feel. So what we have is an absolute need for employees. Employers do not want to be turning over people lightly; they want employees to be coming in. Employers are recognising time and time again that what they need to offer is flexible working arrangements. Those conversations concerning flexible working arrangements take place at the contract stage when the parties are negotiating the conditions of employment and they continue to take place throughout the employment relationship. 
We also have many examples of employees sitting down and talking to each other working out how they can help the business to run and discussing amongst themselves the best arrangements for how that can work. Once we start to legislate we start to lose that freedom. Once we start to legislate we find that employees go by the rule of the book and once that starts to happen we have real concerns. 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I thought we were debating new clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153. I think we are straying away from that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We are actually on new clause 8. The other debate has finished. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: After clause 7 there is new clause 8 and that is exactly what we were talking about. Once we start to look at the arrangements that are actually needed for employees and employers and at how this measure will work for everyone we find that it will not work out as well as it could. Those are the real fears arising from this legislation. Is it well intentioned? Will it actually fix the problems that are out there for a small minority? I do not think it will and that is certainly the concern that we bring to this Committee. 
It is easy for Labour members to bandy around statements that National does not care about employees and workers and that that is why we are not standing up and supporting this legislation. But nothing could be further from the truth and that deserves to be put on record today. What is best for those employees deserves to be considered. Once we start to say that an employee can put in a request only once every 12 months and once the authorities start to make some order that the employer must be paid compensation if a flexible working arrangement does not work all we are doing is putting in another layer of legislation which at the end of the day is least likely to help those who need it most. It bears some consideration that the unions must be informed if a request is approved. That just seems absolutely ludicrous and really unnecessary; it undermines the employee’s right to negotiate how he or she can work flexible hours. 
When it comes down to compensation how the process works and the jurisdiction that comes from it the feeling is that this is just another level of legislation that will not do anything for those people who most need flexible working arrangements. As such it is unnecessary. We should be educating people not legislating on this matter.