Fenton Darien: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2730] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the consideration of the report on the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. Like others I want to thank Sue Kedgley for bringing the bill to Parliament and to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It was indeed a committee where we had interesting and healthy debate on the bill. 
This bill was supported in principle by many organisations and many submissioners including family-friendly employers union organisations women’s organisations professional women’s organisations and others who are increasingly concerned about how we balance our work and family responsibilities. Balancing work and home life is a growing concern for both employers and workers. Improving that balance can help with employee recruitment and retention—as others have said—it can match people who would not otherwise work with particular jobs and it benefits families and communities. 
We have to face the fact that the world has changed. The simple facts are that there are now more women more dual-income families and more sole parents in the workforce and that is amplifying the potential for conflict between work and family life. In addition New Zealand has an ageing population so more of the workforce is likely to be involved in caring for elderly parents and whanau. Jobs have changed significantly over the past couple of decades. We have moved from a predominance of work in primary industries to increased numbers of jobs in retail hospitality information technology and finance. Over this period there has been a growth in non-standard employment such as self-employment contracting-out and temporary and casual work. 
The pattern of working hours has also changed. The trend has been away from the standard full-time working week of 40 hours a week 8 hours a day between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. towards either underemployment—that is where workers cannot get enough hours to make a living in one job so they work two or three jobs—or overwork where workers are working more than 50 hours a week. Skill shortages exist in some sectors and there is difficulty as we know in retaining skilled workers in many industries. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: There is plenty of evidence that balancing work and family responsibilities is one of the significant pressures that New Zealand families are facing. In the report  
Thirty Families – Work Hours 
 by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions for example work hours were a significant problem for workers their families and their communities. For many the hours they were working were simply too long and expectations had increased that additional hours would be contributed to the employer without overtime pay. A significant issue for those working long hours was control over their hours. Many felt they had no say and just had to put up with it regardless of their family circumstances. 
We heard two views in the submissions. One was from some employers and employers’ organisations who felt they were being as flexible as possible and some said that indeed providing any flexibility in terms of the proposed bill would be a significant impost on their business. The other view expressed was the real frustration workers are having in progressing the issue of balancing work and family responsibilities in their workplace. Although some employers have moved with the times others deny that any move towards flexible working hours is necessary—or if they do agree they do not want to have it legislated for. I do want to acknowledge here the many employers who have genuinely attempted to recognise that their employees are more than machines that they come to work as whole people with families and communities behind them and that they are not there just as robots to deliver for the business but more often than not are working to make life better for their families and communities. 
I have been a judge for the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust which has been mentioned in this House in this debate and its work and life awards for employers who have made innovative progress in their businesses towards implementing work-life balance policies. There are many good examples of that but I noted during my time as a judge a distinct lack of entries from organisations that employ low-paid workers manufacturing workers workers doing shift work in the hospitality and care-giving industries and of course those at the bottom of the heap—for example cleaners. It became clear to me that organisations that compete for highly skilled staff such as law firms and universities could see the benefits of developing family-friendly policies. But often the cleaners the kitchen workers and the clerical workers who work in those same firms were excluded from those family-friendly policies. They applied only to those whose skills were in demand. 
Many of the employers who submitted to us claimed to have flexible workplaces because they employ part-time and casual workers. I think they are a bit confused about what flexibility means because they are talking about flexibility for the employer but the employees have no say over that flexibility. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Most of the people who work part-time want to be part-time. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is simply not true. Participating in the select committee debate was an interesting experience because Labour does support improving the work-life balance of workers in this country. But the question we grappled with was not whether employers were doing that anyway as some submitters claimed because that is not true. There is plenty of evidence that the number of employers who have actually implemented provisions like the ones proposed in the bill is not great. So the question we grappled with in the select committee was whether the legislation proposed could be practically implemented in its current form. 
There are many issues to be considered in legislation like this. These include whether workers would have the right to revert to their original hours once their need for flexible hours was considered and that is a considerable concern for many workers because flexible hours can be used as an opportunity to reduce hours leaving them without any security in the future. 
There was also the need to renegotiate the many collective agreements where unions have specifically sought to regulate hours to prevent casualisation and Air New Zealand gave us the example of its 50 collective agreements that would require renegotiation with the unions involved. Many collective agreements have specific full-time hours spelt out and unions have fought hard to hold on to those provisions against the increasing tide of part-time and casual work. We have already talked in this House about the exclusion of some groups such as those that have the care and responsibility of older whanau. There was a very good submission from one group on the growing problems of an ageing population and the impact on work. 
There was the difficulty of making this bill work in practice so that all workers could be treated fairly and it would not operate on a “first in first served” basis. Consideration needs to be given to this because the workplaces that I am very familiar with jealously guard their rights to fairness in shift and hours allocation. Why is that? Because they are always competing for decent work for full-time hours and for a job that will feed their families. I also have an ongoing concern about the highly casualised industries. Their struggle is not for flexible hours but for secure hours and decent work. I know that was not within the ambit of this bill but without significant protections it would be difficult to see how these workers could benefit and indeed flexible hours tend to be something to be avoided for them. 
The select committee did indeed stimulate a healthy and insightful debate but there is more work to be done and we welcome that. We want to be sure we can successfully implement the type of flexible work that the bill’s author envisages. Again I want to thank Sue Kedgley for bringing the bill forward and I look forward to considering this matter again within the year.