Wong Pansy: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Wong Pansy: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2739] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 One is not surprised that this bill is promoted by the Green Party member. This bill according to the Green Party member is about flexible working hours. It is so indicative of the Labour and Green Party members who have a concept that to cater for flexible working hours we must have an inflexible mechanism to enforce it. They simply cannot equate flexibility with letting individuals work out a solution that is flexible enough for both parties. They have never really learnt to trust employers and employees in the 21st century to work out a mechanism that is flexible for both parties. 
Sue Moroney started her speech by saying that as a working mother she understands the need for flexible working hours. My challenge to the Labour member is No. 1 whether we are looking at extending these flexible working hours to members of Parliament who have dependent or disabled children so that they will come to Parliament to participate in the debating chamber or at select committees only when it is flexible for those members; and No. 2 will the Labour Government start giving instructions to the Parliamentary Service that cleaners who come in to tidy up the parliamentary complex will be able to come at hours that are flexible—that are convenient to the cleaning contractors? Until the Government and Green Party members are able to practise what they lecture I once again caution them against putting in a very inflexible framework for largely the small businesses of New Zealand. 
Labour members ask what the big deal is as employers can turn down a request from employees for flexible working hours. But that is the point. Small-business proprietors are doing that right now. Of course staff can make requests. When 86 percent of businesses in New Zealand are classified as small businesses which means they employ only five employees or fewer no one can tell us that the boss and the employees do not talk to one another. 
Any successful business proprietors can tell the public that the only way their business can be successful is to have good staff working for them and to have the staff and the proprietor working as a team. I am talking about busting the myth perpetually believed by Labour and the Greens that all employers are there to abuse staff and not to care about employees’ welfare. I find it very strange when Labour members say that employees go to work because they want to take home money to support their families; those members never mention that employees go to work because they want to be part of a team to grow a successful business. On the other hand Labour members always declare that the reasons people go into business is not because those people want to take a risk and improve their own economic situation but that their first objective is to provide employment. 
I can tell members that the motivation for any people to go into business is actually the same as the motivation for workers—to better their individual position. But employers also understand that for business to be successful they must look after their employees. It is only a tiny minority of short-sighted employers who believe they do not have to look after their staff. So why should we support a bill that sends another signal that employers are somehow not to be trusted? We are in the 21st century where people do know their choices and do make them. 
I would like to take issue with some of the examples that were offered by the previous speaker. My friend was a very successful partner in a medium-sized law practice and yes she decided that the structure of the practice did not really suit her. There was no big hassle and she started her own legal practice. So individuals in that position with a skill base do make choices and know the consequences—the advantages and disadvantages—of being part of a larger entity or of starting their own business. They do not need legislation that requests them to put a formal proposal to their employers. 
Can members imagine they are corner dairy proprietors and suddenly one of their part-time staff has come in and put in a formal request to work maybe on Mondays and Wednesdays. The only means by which they can be turned down is for the proprietor to come back with a business case with some sort of spreadsheet and then after negotiations with other employees to ask whether a case can be made formally to turn down the proposal. That is nonsense. Flexibility for one employee may mean imposing inflexibility on another employee. What happens when one of the five employees in an entity wants some sort of flexibility to suit his or her own work and life situation? What does that mean for the other employees in the same entity? I say that in this modern world most people in those situations have come to a realisation that they can help each other out. Six people in an entity can talk to each other and manage to do that. 
The National Party is supporting this interim report but I personally think we should encourage the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to take as long as it likes to conduct proper surveys. If this bill does not get reported back to Parliament I do not think it will be a bad thing. I think a lot of modern enterprises and small-business entrepreneurs of New Zealand would benefit from a Parliament that resists the temptation to impose legislation on them at every possible moment. So I ask the Green member to reflect and send out some messages to say that she does treat individuals equally and that she does not hold on to the old belief of “us versus them”. I certainly see in most businesses that proprietors know that having a good team of staff is the ingredient for success in business.