Moroney Sue: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Moroney Sue: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2736] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise in support of the interim report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. Along with my colleagues I also thank Sue Kedgley for bringing this bill forward for our consideration. It comes in the context that we in this country have some of the longest hours worked in the OECD. Also for me it comes in the context of having in my maiden speech labelled work-life balance as one of the things that I had at the forefront of my mind when coming into Parliament. I really do believe that work-life balance is one of the most important things we face in this country. It is something we must make some progress on. 
It is within that context that I was very pleased to be able to participate in the discussion in our select committee on this bill and to hear from the many submitters who came forward. I thank the submitters because obviously much thought had gone into the submissions that were received by our select committee. 
It was interesting to see what I perceived as quite a split coming forward from the submissions we received. It was an interesting split because I perceived that it was business versus the rest of the community. That was very much the nature of the submissions received on this bill. The rest of the community were unions women’s groups lawyers and their firms nurses supermarket workers and a whole range of other organisations that came forward to say that they really do believe there is a need for regulation in this area because of their past experiences. 
It came down to a debate in the select committee about education versus regulation. But I want to stress that it is not quite as simple as that. Of course if we were engaged in regulation in this area we would also need a massive education campaign to sit alongside that. I think that is one of the fundamental issues that everyone in the select committee could agree on—that there is a need for education on what the possibilities are what the opportunities are and what the benefits are. Also there is a need for education for working people so that they feel they have the courage and the information to go forward and make a request of their employer for flexible working hours. 
One of the most powerful submissions for me personally came from the Federation of Business and Professional Women. That was one of the submissions that to me went outside the feeling of business versus the rest of the community that I was getting. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You mean hard-line unionists. 
SUE MORONEY 
: And I mean women’s groups and lawyers and nurses and supermarket workers and the list goes on. The member knows the list of submitters as well as I do. Business was the only group that had any concerns to raise about this bill. 
The Federation of Business and Professional Women submission was extremely interesting to me from this perspective. It was an extremely powerful submission. The group’s submitter talked in her oral submission about having interviewed a woman just the previous week for a cleaning job. That is what she did outside of her role of representing business and professional women. She was interviewing this woman who was going for a cleaning job who in fact was a very successful salesperson. She asked this woman why on earth she was applying for the job as she was over-qualified—if there is such a thing—for it. The woman replied that it was because of the hours and the flexibility that they would offer her. She said she could not use her skills as a salesperson and get that flexibility. This happened just the week before the representative came to see our select committee. I thought it was very powerful example of the sort of wastage— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You believe that was true? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Yes I do believe it was true because a submitter told us that. I believe it was true. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Oh so it must be true. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I believe the submission made by the Federation of Business and Professional Women—I sincerely do. That was an example of the type of wastage going on in our economy because of not using people’s skills properly when we do not have that flexibility in our workplaces. 
It is something that is quite personal for me as well because as a working woman with young children I rely and my family relies very heavily on flexibility in my husband’s working arrangements for our situation to actually work. So I fully understand what it means for families. In that context I add that this is not just an issue for women—it is an issue for families and for the men in those families. 
The new work-life balance that is being demanded is sought by people. I share the concerns raised by my colleague Mark Gosche earlier. I am concerned at hearing some sort of feigned outcry from the community about 24-hour childcare when that is what our economy requires. It is no big secret; it should not be shock and horror. This is the type of environment in which we all live and thrive and we need the support services to go with that. As a working mother I reiterate that flexible working hours are a key to our lives. 
Another issue that came up in the discussion with the select committee was the idea that somehow the market would just sort this out. I want to talk about that a bit because I think we need to face up to the myth that lies behind it. We went through a very bad experiment in the 1990s when the market was going to fix all sorts of things—but it never did. Apprenticeship schemes etc. all went by the by. I think we really need to front up to the discussion about whether the market will provide. My colleague Darien Fenton alluded to this and talked about her real-life experience in this area. If one works in an area that is deemed to be low status—and I very carefully say “deemed” to be a low-status area rather than “is” a low-status area—then one’s ability to get one’s employer to agree to flexible working hours is much more limited than it is for someone in a high-status job. That is what we are left with if we leave it up to the market. The market makes a call on low-status and high-status jobs so we have to face up to that reality. 
It was within that context that I was therefore quite surprised to hear that many of the submissions made to the select committee were from women in high-status high-paid jobs. Women lawyers came along to our select committee and said that they do not have the sort of flexibility in their work that they need to make their working lives and their family lives work for them. Nurses and teachers also came along to the select committee. These are professional women who understand exactly how they could work. They could describe to our select committee exactly how within their work which they understood very well they could work but they could not get agreement to that. 
We have this argument about regulation versus education and we have 12 months to have a good look at it and see which way it falls. I must note that the bill has stimulated healthy debate at the select committee. However we do have agreement on some key fundamental points. The need for flexible working hours is agreed. Hallelujah we have got there! So we agree that it needs to happen but we need to have more consideration of the mechanism. A fear expressed by many of the submitters who came forward to us was that they would have to do something they could not possibly do and I think some members opposite are reflecting that. They think that this bill forces employers to do something they cannot possibly do. However I note that under this bill an employer can turn down an application when it cannot be reasonably accommodated on one or more of the following grounds: “(i) inability to re-organise work among existing staff: (ii) inability to recruit additional staff: (iii) detrimental impact on quality: (iv) detrimental impact on performance: (v) insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work; and (vi) planned structural changes.” So members opposite would find if they took the time to read the context of the bill that the sorts of fears they have raised about it are unfounded. 
I look forward to this bill coming back so that we can have a look at what has happened in the previous 12 months. However while I am on my feet I will take the opportunity to do a bit of myth-busting. Some members opposite have taken the opportunity to talk about flexible working hours being a business compliance cost. I feel very sad that the idea of flexible working hours is viewed by the Opposition as being a business compliance cost. I also want to bust the myth that somehow New Zealand has a high level of business compliance costs because that is clearly not true. Why does this country keep topping the reports on ease of business in OECD countries?