Adams Paul: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Adams Paul: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19720] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on this Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. If anything the fiasco we have just seen in the House demonstrates clearly that we cannot run on laws alone. We have had a very clear example in the House—when we take things to the letter of the law without taking into consideration the viewpoints of all people affected we will have a fiasco. 
United Future has been criticised for not supporting this bill going to a select committee because we are known as the family-friendly party. Let me assure those who are listening to this debate that this legislation is absolutely not family friendly. The scenario in this bill should relate to that of a normal working relationship whereby anybody who is negotiating for a job can speak to the prospective employer and discuss the hours he or she wishes to work as occurs already in many businesses throughout this country. 
Nobody would disagree with the scenario in this legislation but it has been brought about in such a legalistic manner. A poor old employer may have somebody come on to his or her payroll on the pretence of working let us say from midday until 3 p.m. then all of a sudden after 6 months the employee can knock on the employer’s door and demand that the working hours be negotiated. Sadly many people do that because they have no intention of working long term from 12 to 3. They get a foot in the door they know that the poor old employer will have to be dragged through the court system and negotiate and the employer ends up the loser. 
If we are talking about time with families as I have heard many speak about in this debate I say that all the reforms that were designed to give us more time with families I have seen go through over a number of years have in reality given us far less time with families. We are starting to work in a 24/7 society and I think that when we are in a situation whereby there is freedom of negotiation about employment by a willing employer and employee it is always far better. 
For a working family United Future’s income-splitting policy would achieve far more for those who want to stay at home and look after their children have more time with their family or whatever. There is an interesting scenario whereby in many families the other partner is forced into taking a job. In today’s society that may well be the male but it is often the female. When we sit down to work out how much better off with a second income those families are at the end of the day we must consider that there are often transport costs to get to work extra clothing costs involved in the job and extra meal costs because of the job—that can be because one of the partners comes home and is just so worn out after the day that he or she chooses to have takeaways or something else. Those are always extra costs. There is also the cost of day-care facilities and many of those other things. So when we work it through for a two-income working family and consider the work-life balance sometimes the few miserable extra dollars they get at the end of the day make one wonder if it is really worth it. 
I believe that although a lot of that legislation sounds fair in itself we are actually channelling people into a lifestyle that they have not chosen. I think that a lot of our legislation has actually taken choice away from families who do not want both parents working and who really want one of them to stay at home to raise their own children. United Future’s income-splitting policy would do far more to achieve a good work-life balance and far more to achieve the ability of one parent being able to go to their children’s sports matches and many of those other things that I have heard about in this debate. So United Future has chosen not to support this bill because in our opinion it is not family friendly.