Prebble Richard: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Prebble Richard: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19718] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make it absolutely clear that I regard it as an outrage to suggest that I have gone on an aeroplane in order not to speak in this debate. I think that Annette King should think about that and withdraw and apologise. 
Jill Pettis 
: It was me. I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I call the Hon Richard Prebble. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I rise to speak to the Green member’s bill the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill and to say that like other members the ACT party’s reaction to flexible employment is very much in favour. When I read the title of the bill I was sympathetic. However when one reads the bill one can see that it is completely different. 
This bill sets out a bureaucratic procedure whereby somebody who has agreed to work for an employer and has signed up and completed an employment agreement can then write a letter saying: “I would like to work different hours.” and the employer is required to agree. The employer is even required—as one sees if one reads the bill carefully—to employ someone else to do the work so that the person can have flexible employment hours. If the employer disagrees the employee then has the right to go to the Employment Court. I just ask the Green Party members where they have been. Have they any idea of the expense and the red tape involved when an employer has to go off to the Employment Court just because someone has written such a letter? 
When one reads the bill further one discovers that the employee can basically do this every year. So every year he or she can write and say: “I’ve decided to change my hours—I’d like to work different hours.” and can demand that the employer employ someone else. So for example although the employee was hired to make sure the shop was open at 8 o’clock he or she can decide not to be there at 8 o’clock and the employer would have to employ someone else at that hour. The employee might instead like to work from 11 until 3 which are nice easy hours. The employee can then go to the Employment Court which will have to look at the matter and the Employment Court can fix the hours. I looked through the bill to see whether there was any clause that asked whether the employer could afford it and what the effect would be on the company—and members can see that the effect could be disastrous on many small businesses. There is no such provision. 
I listened very carefully to the Green MP’s speech last night. She told us that we should do this basically because the Europeans do it. Again one wonders where the Green MPs have been. We could have some debate in this House about whether the present high levels of employment are due to the changes made by Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas which I think is so or whether the present Government can take the credit. But there is no doubt about one thing—the reason the British have a higher level of unemployment than us is that even though they have the most flexible labour laws in Europe they are much more inflexible than ours. If we were to look at the Europeans that the Green MPs were citing we would see that they have in some countries up to 17 percent of the workforce who want to work out of work. The Green MPs are asking why we cannot join them. They are saying: “Wouldn’t that be great.” and that somehow we are out of step with the rest of the world. We are actually because we have more of our people working. 
From the ACT party’s point of view the only thing the Green MP got right was the name of the bill. If we really want to have flexible working hours we should have a freedom-to-contract bill. Any employer and any employee should be able to sit down freely without any interruption from the State and negotiate whatever hours time and conditions they want. If the Green Party really wants flexible employment then that is what it ought to do. Indeed we have Mr Tamihere’s word that the changes made by the Labour Government with the enthusiastic support of the Greens have actually put up the costs of employment. I will not repeat the words Mr Tamihere used when he described the changes the Government has made because most of them are unparliamentary. These changes which the Green Party wants to make would be at the expense of employment at the expense actually of flexible working hours and at the expense of greater prosperity. 
The Green Party does not appear to realise that the vast majority of firms in New Zealand—about 90 percent I understand—actually employ five people or less. The Green Party is saying that the State should fix everybody’s hours of work—what time they would start and what time they would finish. Even the Communists did not go that far. This is an appalling proposal. It would add costs and it is anti-employer and I think it is actually anti-worker anti-women and anti-New Zealand. It is totally contrary to our traditions and the Green Party needs to have a rethink. I say to the member that the ACT party most certainly will not be supporting this bill.