Moroney Sue: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Moroney Sue: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12489] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to be able to stand up in the Committee stage of the debate on the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. I have been a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but I have not yet had an opportunity to enter into the debate on this bill so it is a great pleasure indeed to be able to do so. It was extremely noticeable that the previous speaker in the debate on clause 6A Allan Peachey had not been on the select committee did not really understand what this part of the bill was about and is completely out of touch with the needs of New Zealand families. 
Allan Peachey 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. As the father of four children I take exception to the allegation that I am out of touch with the families of New Zealand. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. That is a debating point. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The whole point of what that member was speaking about was the supposed cost of this bill to employers. If he had been speaking with New Zealand families or even with employers in recent times he would have understood that the largest problem that New Zealand employers face at the moment is actually a skills shortage; it is the inability to recruit and retain staff. So what better way is there to address the modern New Zealand world than for employers to have legislation that gives them guidance and support in introducing flexible working hours as this bill does? I remind that member that he seemed in particular to disregard new section 69AAE(3) of the legislation which talks about the grounds for refusal. These are the grounds by which the employer can refuse a request from his or her employee. 
I want to remind people listening to this debate that the employees whom we are talking about here already bear costs. Kate Wilkinson talked at great length about the supposed cost to the employer. I would argue that there would be a cost to employers of not going down this track in fact. However we know in this day and age that New Zealand families carry costs of inflexible working hours all the time. I do not know whether any members opposite have in recent times paid for childcare and I do not know whether any members opposite have recently paid for caregivers to look after disabled relatives but these are the costs that are borne day in day out and week in week out by New Zealand workers and their families. So if we are going to talk about costs let us be equitable about it; let us talk about the true cost to New Zealand society of having inflexible working hours inflexible working ability and working arrangements. 
The previous speaker needs to read new section 69AAE(3) which covers the grounds for refusal. If members opposite understood the modern business environment then they would understand that these grounds are entirely acceptable because they are: the employer can refuse a request if there is “(a) inability to reorganise work among existing staff:”. Those members have gone very quiet because that provision completely blows away their entire argument and particularly Mr Peachey’s most recent contribution to this debate—it is completely blown away by just one sentence in the bill. 
Hon Member 
: And there’s more. 
SUE MORONEY 
: And there is more. Another ground for refusal is “(b) inability to recruit additional staff:”. So where are these hidden costs coming in? Employers can actually refuse on the grounds that there would be “(c) detrimental impact on quality:”. I would like Kate Wilkinson to take a call and describe exactly where these hidden costs are. Another ground is “(e) insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work:”— 
John Hayes 
: Unions bashing employers—that’s what you’re up to! 
SUE MORONEY 
: A bit of union bashing is going on across the Chamber. What is happening here is family bashing from the opposite side of the Chamber. Those members are saying that workers with family responsibilities should not have the legal right to request flexible working hours. 
Chris Tremain 
: They already have. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well they should say it loud and say it clear because I think the vast majority of New Zealanders absolutely disagree with the National Party on this. They know that flexible working hours and quality family life are at the top of their agenda. The National Party will suffer for its position on this bill. 
I will continue talking about the grounds for refusal. These are grounds that employers can use for refusing requests.