Locke Keith: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Locke Keith: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Hours) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Interim Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2732] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is very proud that our colleague Sue Kedgley’s bill has been treated so seriously by this House and by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and that further research will be done to make sure that the outcome of the bill is the best possible. I have been listening tonight to the National Party arguments from Wayne Mapp and Jo Goodhew and they are not very convincing at all; in fact they are a bit contradictory. They say that things are wonderful in the workplace that everyone dialogues nicely that employers dialogue with workers and that everything is sorted out informally and people do not need anything else. But even if that were the case why should those members be so frightened of a bill like this which prescribes procedures? If their view is correct—that the procedures are unnecessary and everything is wonderful—they should not be threatened by the fallback to procedures that this bill provides in case things do not go well. 
We all know that the whole raft of workplace law we have built up over the years by both National-led Governments and Labour-led Governments is for situations in the workplace where everything is not going well and where employers are not acting in the best interests of their workers. As Darien Fenton has pointed out it depends a bit on the demand for one’s skills. If a person is a cleaner and there seem to be other people around who could take on that person’s job if that person does not do exactly what he or she is told then the negotiation the dialogue does not seem to go on quite as well as it would if that person is well-skilled those skills are in high demand and the employer does not want to lose that person. There might then be a bit of flexibility as to one’s work hours. 
So I think this bill is very important and will be so for lower-paid workers and less-skilled workers. It will be even more important if we have higher unemployment. We have been quite lucky over the last year or two to have low unemployment but if we get higher unemployment then fewer employers naturally will be interested in having proper dialogue and flexibility in the workforce. But actually as has been pointed out by my colleague and others it is more efficient for employers to have happy workers. If there is a flexible workforce arrangement there is less absenteeism which means that if workers have some important household duties or something to do that concerns their kids they do not have to throw a sickie all of a sudden and put the employer out. It is all much more planned and there are structures in place—replacement structures etc.—so that it does not affect the industry so much. The workers are better workers because they are more motivated. They think they are being treated well and there is less turnover in the workforce. 
As we all know one of the major costs—and the National Party goes on and on about compliance costs—of any employer is selecting and training new labour. This will be reduced if we have happy workers. They might stay with an employer all their lives if we treat them well under this bill. Employers would also keep the experience and skills that are so important to an efficient workplace. 
It is important to point out as other speakers have that women tend to suffer more if such procedures as are outlined in this bill are not put in place. They have to scurry around fitting their other household and childcare duties into a very difficult employment situation. The people whom Darien Fenton talked about—the lower-paid workers—often work very long hours too. The figure quoted by Sue Kedgley was that a fifth of the workforce works 50 or more hours a week. It is very hard to pay proper attention to one’s family in that situation and even harder if one does not have flexible work relationships. [ 
Interruption 
] As my colleague Sue Kedgley just commented MPs sometimes have difficulty in coping with their family responsibilities and we should be particularly sensitive to others in the workforce who have similar problems. [ 
Interruption 
] Peter Brown who has just interjected mentioned the cost argument—that somehow this legislation does not cover costs. This is very broad-brush legislation. Sure it could be tightened up and be more prescriptive in the way that Peter Brown has suggested but we wanted to put the framework in place at this point and also get the support of the National Party. 
I thought that by having such moderate legislation surely the National Party would support it along with New Zealand First. But even under the general prescriptions here if a case goes to an employer and then the appeal system is brought into effect surely the effect of what the employee is demanding of the employer would take into account the importance of that particular worker to the industry etc. All the particulars will be taken into account as part of this process which might reflect on the cost structure for the business. I do not think business people need to worry at all. 
Peter Brown said that the bill should include those who look after elderly parents as well as young children. Sue Kedgley stated at the time that she agrees. That is something we could extend into the bill as it goes along. Much of the discussion so far has been on the bill’s effect on workers—on their being happier and able to carry out their family duties etc.—but I think we also have to look very closely at the kids. It does not do kids any favours when their parents work 50 or more hours a week and do not have the flexibility to look after their kids properly. A lot of kids become latchkey kids in this situation. It is not good for their development. They often get into trouble or do not do their homework. All kinds of things happen if parents do not have that flexibility. If the mother and the father are stressed and the kids can see that they are stressed it carries over to the kids too and inhibits their proper development. I think this bill will help to alleviate those problems too. 
Also speaking as a male Green MP having flexible work hours helps the balance between men and women who look after children. The hours apply to men and to women. There is an increasing tendency in society although it has not gone terribly far yet for house husbands to take over the care of the kids for a few years and for men to play a greater role in the bringing up of their children. The arrangements in the bill will enable that flexibility to be perfected much more and will lead to a more balanced development of children. 
As I think a previous speaker pointed out there are a lot of solo parents around now and if they have jobs they find it particularly difficult to cater for their children and have flexibility too. Often solo parents are not in full-time employment or their employment shifts from time to time. They might be in full-time employment for a period and then not be employed full time and having an arrangement such as under this bill whereby they can pay attention to their kids even though they are solo parents is very important. It will help to address the problem of casualisation that Darien Fenton mentioned. One reason why we have such a degree of part-time work—and some of it is legitimate part-time work but some of it is forced part-time work or casualisation—is that parents do not have a flexible arrangement guaranteed by legislation and they have to go from part-time job to part-time job. This bill will help to address that. 
If members have looked at the Green Party logo they will see that it has the words “Quality of Life” under it. I think this bill will improve the quality of life for everyone—for male parents for female parents and for kids. Having a work-life balance is very important for the quality of life of all of us.