Peachey Allan: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peachey Allan: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12478] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to clause 3 of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Bill. This clause deals with the purpose of the bill. I need to make it very very clear right from the start that this legislation has no purpose in it at all. Anybody who has had the privilege of employing people understands well that legislation like this is the last thing that we need to govern the relationship between employer and employee particularly when legislation already exists that makes provision for this sort of flexibility and makes provision for this sort of matter to be sorted out in good faith between employer and employee. 
I have noted with some interest the willingness of those who are promoting this legislation to turn to and quote UK examples. Let us be very very clear that the New Zealand economy and the structure of New Zealand business are very very different from the position in the UK. New Zealand for example relies for so much of its prosperity and so much of its employment on small firms—firms with a relatively small number of employees in a close working relationship with their employer. We cannot legislate for the quality of that sort of relationship. When Governments seek to do that and when members seek to bring this sort of legislation into the House we have to question very very carefully what the purpose and motivation is for wanting to make this sort of change. I suggest to the Committee that legislating for flexibility is just one more example of legislation that this country does not have a need for and frankly I suspect does not really want. 
But of course for some people this is good politics: they get their name in the paper they put up a bit of legislation and they get some of those people who want to advocate for employees onside. But if we sit down and think about what this legislation is trying to do—its purpose—we have to question the legislation. What does this legislation add to the quality of employer-employee relationships? [ 
Interruption 
] No nothing—my colleague Kate Wilkinson is right; it adds absolutely nothing. All it is is another example of legislators wanting to throw in more law wanting to change things— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Bureaucratic! 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Yes they are throwing in more bureaucracy to give their mates more jobs. We know that bureaucracy does not add to GDP; it does not add one dollar to GDP. 
Peter Brown 
: You wouldn’t have a clue what it was about. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Ah—there is a distant voice from New Zealand First talking about clues. We will have to tell the members of that party that they do not have a lot of clues. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Is it appropriate for the deputy leader of New Zealand First to shout at me across the Chamber while leaving the Chamber on his feet? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No it is not. I am sorry I missed that; it is not right. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Thank you Madam Chairperson. The point I am trying to stress the point I am asking this Chamber to consider carefully is the question of why we need further legislation to come between employer and employee particularly given that so many businesses in New Zealand are relatively small and rely very very strongly on good-faith provisions in legislation that already exists. 
So we come back to one conclusion and one conclusion only: this is legislation for legislation’s sake. When we examine the purpose of the bill we can come to no other reasonable conclusion. Legislation for the sake of legislation is not good legislation. Frankly I think it is increasingly apparent that New Zealanders are sick and tired of this sort of interference in the way they conduct their daily lives. New Zealanders in employment are more than capable without this sort of legislation of conducting their relationships with reasonable fair employers. [ 
Interruption 
] It is common sense as my colleague Kate Wilkinson points out—straight pure common sense. That is what governs relationships.