Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Arrangements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Arrangements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13323] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker and say that I thought hers was a very sad speech. It was a very sad speech from a member of probably one of the few parties in the world that has not carefully considered this issue and seen the benefit of this sort of approach especially to women but also to the economy. Frankly I had some hope that under John Key the National Party would at least come into the second half of the 20th century but it is clear that a lot of the lessons that people such as the member in charge of the bill and many people on this side of the House learnt in the 1970s—the 1970s in the member’s case and the 1960s and 1970s in my case—have not been learnt by members opposite. 
I am pleased to support the bill and I want to congratulate Sue Kedgley on introducing it and shepherding it through the House in the way she has. New Zealander’s want and they need work-life balance. We are a group of people as a country who compared with people in the vast majority of other countries work too long. We do not work smart enough we are not well enough trained and our jobs are not properly capitalised in a way that we can be more productive. Flexible working arrangements are a key part of getting that work-life balance. It is about the quality of life and living standards. 
Flexible responsive workplaces can both deliver productivity benefits and ease our skill shortages. Flexibility can help us compete globally for skilled workers and enable more New Zealanders who want to work to participate in the labour market. At the margins it will mean that some people will participate slightly less in the labour market but probably more productively as a result. Research carried out by the Department of Labour over the past 2 years has shown how important it is for New Zealanders to have the right workplace environments—that people participate in the labour force and balance work with other things in their lives. 
Two national surveys of employees and employers about work-life balance have identified that flexible working arrangements including flexible start and finish times consistently ranked amongst the most helpful initiatives for people to balance work with other things in their lives. The research shows that flexible working arrangements benefit people like working parents students retirees volunteers single parents and caregivers providing support to family and whanau. Flexible work arrangements can also benefit employers our community our economy and our environment. The two surveys suggest that a majority of employers do not see major barriers to improving flexibility and on top of that employees understand the business imperatives facing their organisations. In fact many employers already offer their staff flexible working arrangements but many do not. 
This bill provides certain employees who meet specific eligibility criteria with a right to request flexible working arrangements—that is a change to their hours of work times or days of work or place of work. Eligible employees must have the care of another person and must have been employed by their employer for at least 6 months prior to making a request. The bill requires employers to consider the request and provides grounds on which they can refuse a request. The bill also provides for a process for making and considering requests including a requirement that the employee making a request must explain what changes may be required to the employer’s arrangements. This aspect of the bill supports what we have heard through the recent consultation. To be successful flexible work arrangements need to suit the needs of all parties; namely the individual concerned his or her colleagues and the workplace. 
Amendments made to the bill during the Committee stage have strengthened the bill. Ensuring that the decision about whether a request for flexible working arrangements can be accommodated rests solely with the employer. Now only issues of non-compliance with the process as outlined in the bill can be challenged and reviewed. The process for resolving disputes that may arise as a result of a request has also been streamlined and aims to ensure the lowest possible level of intervention. Where a dispute arises an employer or an employee may refer that dispute to a labour inspector who must assist the parties to resolve the issue. In fact a labour inspector can be asked to assist and provide advice at any stage in the process of making or considering a request for flexible work arrangements. If after receiving assistance from a labour inspector the matter is not resolved parties can go to mediation and the Employment Relations Authority. 
It is prudent to consider the effect of any new legislation. Consequently the bill requires the Minister of Labour to report to Parliament as soon as practicable 2 years after the commencement of the operation the effects of the new provisions including recommendations about whether the right to request flexible working hours should be extended. 
As Sue Kedgley said the bill is based on similar UK legislation. A recent UK study of work-life balance found that nearly 80 percent of requests for flexible working arrangements had been accepted the majority of which were accepted in whole and a smaller number resulted in compromises. Studies into the effect of the UK legislation on employers have also been positive. One such study found that 76 percent of businesses found the impact of the legislation to be negligible and 90 percent reported no significant problems in complying with the new requirements. The majority of employers also believe that the legislation has had a positive effect on employee attitudes and morale. 
It is notable that the Prime Minister of the UK has just announced an independent review of how the right to request flexible work legislation can be extended to parents of children over the age of 6. Our Parliament had the foresight during the Committee stage to amend the eligibility criteria in this legislation to ensure that from the outset any worker who has the care of any other person will be able to request flexible work arrangements. Some workplaces in our country already have some form of flexibility in place and others are starting to move towards these more flexible arrangements. This bill supports the increasing trend in New Zealand workplaces. 
I again acknowledge the voices of business unions and employees who made submissions on this bill and have stimulated the public debate about issues of work-life balance more broadly. I thank my colleagues in the House for the contribution they have made in strengthening and clarifying the intent of this bill when they debated it during the Committee stage. I would like particularly to acknowledge the work of the select committee members. This is I think another good example of how a Labour-led Government working with other parties in an MMP environment can achieve the best solution for the diverse interests of those affected by the changes. 
When I and I am sure a number of others hit the hustings next year we will have quite a lot of fun explaining in workplaces—in fact some of us will probably do so when we are out in our electorates on Friday—the National Party’s opposition to flexibility in workplaces. The National members are all for flexibility for their own approach. National has a number of very very part-time members. There are National members in this House who have not asked a single question all year. They are absolutely lazy members of Parliament. They have not got up early enough in the morning to put a question in and to ask a question of a Minister. They take a flexible approach for themselves. 
Nathan Guy 
: Is this the new Trevor or the old one? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This is a wonderful rehabilitated Minister. What I am saying is that members opposite have to decide whether they are prepared to match their practice with the ability of other people to request a similar practice and have it considered. 
Hon Member 
: They don’t ask anybody. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No members on the other side do not ask anybody whether they can roll up at 2 o’clock. They start their work after lunch but they do not want other people to have the right to request a different day of work or a half-day shifted around or something similar. I think members opposite are looking more than a little sheepish. They know that they have made a mistake. They know deep down in their hearts that they are making fools of themselves but for reasons that none of us can work out mainly a lot of the time they are the “me too” Opposition. They are trying to cuddle up to the Government. 
I am especially uncertain as to why they want to offend the Greens so much. It says something about their approach to MMP I suppose that they have their deep hatred of the Greens and their inability to support a bill that is promoted by a Green member in this way. I think that is very sad because MMP does not work that way. It does not matter how different our original views are from those of other members; we work through to a compromise and get something reasonable. When something very reasonable like this bill is developed then it should be supported.