Brown Peter: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2724] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me start by saying that New Zealand First supports the concept of flexible working hours. When one compares this country with places like the UK we see that to a large degree we already have them. When I was an employer some years ago I offered very flexible working hours to many of my staff and for many more comprehensive reasons than this bill provides for. Indeed it was made known to us on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the Employment Relations Act has actually strengthened the ability to request flexible working hours more than perhaps was the case when the Employment Contracts Act was in place. 
The Hon Mark Gosche made some very very good points but I have to say I think he was a little bit harsh on the submitter from the hospitality industry. It just goes to show how one side can misunderstand the other side. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: I understood exactly what he was talking about. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well I took it from his submission that he was saying that effectively the industry has got to cater for its staff and has got to consider a request for flexible working hours otherwise they will walk down the street and get the hours they want in the next café. But those members did not see that. It is like seeing one’s beer glass as half empty or half full and I have to say that I think Bruce Robertson made that point pretty clearly. 
Hon Jim Sutton 
: Will the member answer a question? 
PETER BROWN 
: I will answer any question but the member should put it at question time. 
Hon Jim Sutton 
: Did the member impose flexible hours on his employees? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am not sure what the member means. When I was manager of the Bay of Plenty Stevedoring Co. Ltd I listened to my employees’ concerns and gave them as much flexibility as I possibly could. In fact I am 20 years ahead of this bill. 
I have to take my colleague Dr Mapp to task because in the last 2 minutes of his speech which seemed like an eternity he spoke of a them-and-us culture. I say to Dr Mapp that when we compare this country with the UK and Australia we can see that we have never had a them-and-us culture. There has always been dialogue. I have dealt with the toughest unions—the unions for seafarers and stevedores—on a day-to-day basis and more than anybody else here. Nobody should try to tell me that they are a bunch of wimps because I can tell people that they are not. I have to say to members that in comparison with the UK there is a huge amount of dialogue here although the UK might well have improved. 
I say to Sue Kedgley that there used to be a saying in the UK: “Get a bar of Lifebuoy.” That might be news to the House. It was a polite way of saying that someone had BO. I am not about to tell Sue Kedgley that she has BO—she has not—but most certainly she has got this bill wrong and the polite assertions being made here will not give her that impression at all. First of all—and she corrected it and I take my hat off to her for correcting it—clause 3(1) stated: “The purpose of this Act is to grant qualifying employees the right to change their working hours …”. She changed that by stating that it means to make a request to change their working hours. 
She made reference to similar legislation in the UK. The explanatory note of the bill states: “The bill sets out the reasons which would justify rejecting a request—including the burden of additional costs to the business and the inability to organise work within available staffing.” There is no reference at all in this bill to giving an employer the right to reject a request on the basis of cost. That provision is in the UK bill as is another one providing that an employer can reject a request on the basis of the effect it will have on the company’s clients. Clearly those provisions were taken out by the Greens before they put up this bill for a first reading. 
I say that it is a little bit naughty to then stand in the House both in the first reading debate and just now and say that this bill is based on the UK legislation. It is based on the UK legislation but some very very significant clauses have been taken out. New Zealand First has a large concern that this bill applies only to people who have responsibility for young children up to the age of 5 or for disabled children up to the age of 18. It ignores people who take on responsibility for elderly parents or other family members and caregivers at large. That is not good enough. In this modern society those people play a very prominent part. I heard the member say that she will include them now but I would have much preferred this bill to be more comprehensive when it first came to this House. As I recall New Zealand First voted against it then for the very same reasons I am outlining now. 
We welcome the year for education. The Hon Mark Gosche said that it was a question of regulate or educate. We believe he hit the nail on the head. We welcome the year or thereabouts to educate the public. We were told by Business New Zealand and other employers that they fully support a regime—for want of a better word—of educating employers but we are not prepared to treat employers like fools. We believe that New Zealand employers for the most part know what they are doing know what they can afford know what they want to achieve and have the talents to run successful businesses. So if they say they cannot live with flexible working hours New Zealand First is prepared to listen to them and to listen to them seriously. We need successful employers in this country and we should be promoting and encouraging them. That does not mean we remove our sympathy towards people who want to have flexible working hours. We want that but we will not impose these sorts of conditions. 
Mark Gosche illustrated quite a few of the situations we heard about at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee where employees outlined difficulties and I think all of us on the select committee had sympathy for the plight of those people. But we also heard from employers who said it is very impractical very difficult or very costly simply to implement flexible working hours across the board. I think those employers should be listened to. 
New Zealand First will support legislation that is fair to both employees and employers. But I have to say as strongly as possible that we will not support legislation that looks only at the needs of caregivers of children. We want legislation that bases flexible working hours around all caregivers including people who look after the elderly. We have an ageing population in this country—500000 of them right now—and in not too many years’ time we will have a good deal more. Indeed I might be one of them in a few years’ time. I want to give people who look after the elderly a fair go. 
As Wayne Mapp illustrated under similar legislation in the UK a person can come along and receive flexible working hours but those in the queue behind that person may receive nothing or very little. We think that situation is not flexible enough so when the new draft of this bill comes back to the House it must embrace all these concerns. It is a serious issue and I do not want to move away from recognising that fact. If we are to bring in legislation like this we have to get it right. We have to consider everybody and anybody who could be affected by it from employers to caregivers of children through to caregivers of elderly folk. We need to be fair. 
I believe that an honest attempt will be made by employers to try to sell this to other employers in a fair way and I wish them well. The feedback I am receiving from employers and employer groups is that they have taken on board the fact that Parliament is looking at this legislation they want to encourage its development and they are prepared to play a positive role in educating their folk. But I want to make it clear that the employer must always have the right to reject a request for flexible working hours where there are genuine reasons to reject it. He or she runs the business and is captain of the ship and New Zealand First is not encouraging mutinies.