Brown Peter: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12491] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have sat here and listened to the debate thus far this evening and I have to ask those National members whether they are all on the same team. 
John Hayes 
: Absolutely! We’re not on your side that’s for sure. 
PETER BROWN 
: I hear all sorts of arguments coming from there and clearly some of those members have not got a clue what the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is about. My best advice is to read it in depth. 
Secondly I have to say that Paula Bennett made some good points. She is challenging the provision in clause 6A section 69AAD(2) which states: “The employee is not entitled to make another request under this Part to his or her employer earlier than 12 months after the date on which the previous request was made.” I say to Ms Bennett—she has just disappeared— 
John Hayes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Standing Orders do not provide for someone to be referred to as having left the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Quite right. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Chairman I did not say she had left the Chamber. As far as I know she could be standing right behind me 
The point I am making is that if Paula Bennett wants to put forward an amendment to delete that clause New Zealand First will give serious consideration to supporting it. I cannot commit the Government to it but if Paula Bennett wants to delete that clause we will give serious thought to supporting her. It is unlikely she will be on her own if she wants to do that. 
John Hayes 
: Why don’t you do it then? 
PETER BROWN 
: Having said that I say to Mr Hayes that this has been put in here at the behest of employers the people whom he is supposedly standing up for and supporting. You said you are such a dang good employer that you do not need the legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
PETER BROWN 
: Not you Mr Chairperson. I would not dare say that to you. 
I say to Mr Hayes that I have no doubt he is a good employer. When I was an employer I thought I was pretty good and pretty fair. I used to let my staff operate pretty reasonable and flexible working hours. I do not doubt that he did the same or does the same if he is still employing people. I only hope he did a better job with his staff than he did with a little old Japanese lady whom he apparently ripped off to the tune of $900. Or was it $900000? But never mind. 
This bill will have little or no effect on the average good employer whether that employer is large small or in between—none at all. 
Allan Peachey 
: Then why have it? 
PETER BROWN 
: That is a good question and it has been answered. Kate Wilkinson quoted me earlier and I was quite chuffed to be acknowledged in her comments. She seemed to be implying that I was some sort of expert on labour relations. I took it as a compliment. She said that we do not need this bill because we have good faith. I know that Kate Wilkinson does not believe that every employer operates in good faith. If those members think that then they are out of touch with what goes on in this country. Many employers in this country work in a very competitive environment and from time to time that necessitates their taking short cuts. 
All this bill does is allow employee’s to go along to their employer in a formal sense and ask for flexible working hours because they are looking after somebody. I would say that most employers would comply with that without any shadow of doubt. But there are some who will not or do not and if those members do not know employees who work for those sorts of people then they are not in touch with the average New Zealander. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Bob Clarkson he should sit down and keep quiet. I know he would not need this bill. From what I have discussed with him I know he talks to his staff and he listens to their concerns. But I know that he knows that there are employers who do not do the same. 
John Hayes 
: So their employee leaves. That’s their right. 
PETER BROWN 
: I would not employ that member if he was the last man living but never mind. It is a sad fact of life that some employers are unapproachable to their staff. The staff might legally have the right to go along and ask for flexible hours but some employers are totally unapproachable. 
All this bill does is give the employee the right to formally go to the employer and ask for flexible hours. If the employer cannot accommodate that request he or she can refuse it. The bill lists a number of reasons for refusal—for example the inability to reorganise work among existing staff. If there is an inability to recruit additional staff the request can be rejected. If there is a detrimental impact on quality it can be rejected. If there is a detrimental impact on performance it can be rejected. If there is insufficient work during the periods the employee wishes to work it can be rejected. If there are planned structural changes it can be rejected. And so the list goes on. 
I do not think that for the most part this bill will have any effect at all on employment relationships between employees and employers but it will have an effect when the employer does not play fair. It will have an effect when the employer is not prepared to give reasonable consideration. The employee can go along formally—I have to emphasise “formally”—and request flexible working hours because somebody is sick or needs help or in situations where the employee is in a caring position and needs to adjust his or her working hours to suit. That is totally reasonable in a civilised society. 
Members should go home look in the mirror and say they are voting against this. I challenge them to go home look in the mirror and say “That is me and I am voting against it.” 
Colin King 
: So you’d legislate? 
PETER BROWN 
: I know the member; he will not do that. He will go in with the party vote but in his heart he knows that it is a reasonable request. 
Colin King 
: You don’t need legislation. 
PETER BROWN 
: Let me say that we need legislation if people do not comply with the reasonableness of this sort of thing. This bill has been reshaped and restructured to make it the fairest possible bill it could be in terms of employees and employers. The average decent law-abiding employer has nothing to fear—nothing to fear at all. 
John Hayes 
: More unnecessary law. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is not unnecessary if employees are not given a fair shake of the whip if employees are too scared or too nervous to talk to their employers or if there is an abundance of people who can be called upon. 
We are talking now about low-paid people—people employers can get 10 a penny so to speak. Employees cannot go along and ask for this without legislation supporting it. That is a sad fact of life in this country. It used to be the fairest country going but now elements about it are totally unfair. Low-paid and low-skilled people in particular who can easily be replaced need the protection of this sort of legislation simply to go along and ask whether they can have flexible working hours to look after their sick relatives or their sick sons or daughters. That is absolutely a reasonable request to make. Thank you.