Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12481] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the purpose of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill which as we know is to provide a statutory right for employees to request a variation of their working arrangements. But it also places a duty on the employers who receive those requests. I say at this stage as a bit of an introduction that I think it is appropriate to repeat that what we are debating tonight really is an important issue—that of flexibility in the workplace. If we were debating only the importance of flexibility in the workplace then there would be no disagreement. But that is not what we are debating; we are actually debating legislating for that flexibility. We do not need to debate the advantages both to employee and employer of flexibility in the workplace because we know there are advantages. We applaud that and we support that flexibility. We recognise the importance of flexibility not just for women or parents but in order to facilitate good productive employment relations for the benefit of both employee and employer. But we do not applaud or support unnecessary rigid legislation. We support education as to the benefits of flexibility but not the legislation. 
I refer to a previous Committee stage speech by the honourable member Mr Peter Brown. At that stage he admitted that all employees have the right now to ask for flexible working arrangements. That is what he said: “all employees have the right to ask for flexible working hours”. He also said: “I do not think anybody is arguing that it is not [true].” Obviously that is right. But then when we asked why we even need this legislation his response was to refer to the purpose clause of the bill which we are debating tonight and which includes an obligation on the employer to consider seriously a request for flexibility. Mr Brown said: “The employee can already make a request but under this bill the employer will have to consider it seriously.” as though under the current legislation the employer does not have to consider it seriously. 
 So what exactly does he think happens or can happen under the existing legislation? What does he think “good faith” means if it does not include taking any reasonable request seriously? [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Brown that that is exactly what good faith means—it means taking any reasonable request seriously. In fact the current legislation specifically provides for “good faith” applying in relation to a variation of working conditions. Variations are provided for; good faith is provided for. Already the employer must act in good faith and consider such a request so why do we even need this legislation? We say that legislation is not needed. We should have the debate by all means. Debate is good; flexibility is good. We say we should use the debate to educate and promote the benefits of flexibility but not to impose unnecessary legislation. 
It was interesting that Ms Fenton said in that prior reading that “there is a lot stopping people from asking for flexible working hours at the moment;”. Well what exactly is stopping them asking? Because it is certainly not in the law; it is already covered in existing legislation. But then I liked her example of parties that “understand the realities of the working lives of many New Zealanders.”—that is what she said! She said cleaners here in the House here in Parliament might want to clean the House during the day and not at night and asked “do members think that under the current legislation they would have a prayer?” but under this bill she said they would. Well firstly they can make any reasonable request under the existing legislation and secondly all I can say is that I look forward to the interruption of a debate in the Chamber so that the cleaners can clean because they want to clean during the day. 
We have heard twice tonight about the UK legislation—that we should mimic the UK legislation and that if it works over there it will work here. I refer to the official advice we were given when we were considering the bill in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and were cautioned on the use and value of such comparisons. I will quote the advice because I want to get it exactly right: “There are questions as to the extent of the impact of the UK flexibility legislation because there are methodological inconsistencies in DTI-sponsored research on the impact. The DTI results are not necessarily supported by research from other organisations. There is no accurate pre-legislation baseline of information to measure from and often the surveys do not distinguish between those eligible to request and those not eligible.”