Brown Peter: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Arrangements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Arrangements) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13325] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to start by commenting on what the National Party said. National has got it wrong. I listened to Kate Wilkinson very very carefully. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: As you do. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well Kate Wilkinson is actually a cut above the rest— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: No she’s gone downhill. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes clearly she has gone downhill. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: She spends too much time with them. 
PETER BROWN 
: My colleague says she spends too much time with them. I refer to clause 6A which is the clause Kate Wilkinson referred to. Section 69AAE was inserted by clause 6A but subsection (2) was struck out. It stated: “An employer may refuse a request only if it cannot reasonably be accommodated on 1 or more of the grounds specified in subsection (3).” She wanted to delete the word “reasonably”. Then the subsection would have said “if it cannot be accommodated” and she asked whether it would be reasonable of a person who had offered to replace another person who had been granted flexible working hours to then demand quadruple pay. Well that is unreasonable. The employer—if the word “reasonably” was in there—could deny the request. He could say that quadruple pay was not reasonable. But now that the word has been removed as Kate Wilkinson wanted an employer would have no grounds for refusing that specific request. The National members have got it totally wrong. Kate Wilkinson suggested that the National Party supports flexibility but it will vote against this bill. She said that the bill is the concern not the flexibility itself. 
Let me just say that this bill is vastly different from the first version. The first version really applied to parents who had a child under 5 or a disabled child under 18. I think I am correct; Sue Kedgley is acknowledging that I am correct. They could ask for flexible working hours but only on a permanent basis. They got those hours permanently and that would have created the situation that Kate Wilkinson referred to—the queuing and what have you. But in fairness to Sue Kedgley I note that she accepted the advice of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to put a gap in proceedings for a year and let the employers and unions work it out and put a programme in place for establishing a more flexible working environment throughout the country. 
The bill came back vastly altered and Sue has monitored all that and taken on board all the recommendations of the select committee. It came back to the House and it has been altered again significantly by the Committee of the whole House. I think it was almost at the last call during the Committee stage when the Minister the new Minister intervened and changed it yet again. Sue Kedgley has stuck by this bill and monitored it all the way through and she should be complimented on that. 
Employers have nothing to fear from this bill. Genuine employers who care even one little iota about their staff have nothing to fear from this bill. People will still be able to go to their managers or whoever is in charge and say: “Look I have a situation at home.” They may have to look after little Johnny or little Mary and they may want to change their hours for a particular week and it will be done informally. But if an employer is not reasonable is arrogant and assertive and will not listen to a request for flexible working hours for a caring situation then an employee has the right to put in a formal request for flexible working hours. 
This bill I suggest will affect very few employers throughout this country. New Zealand employers are basically very fair-minded. They know the importance of looking after their staff and that has become increasingly so now that they are working in a tight labour market. I suggest that this bill will improve staff relations but I have my doubts as to whether it will be used to any great extent because I think New Zealanders are very fair-minded anyway and when one gets a fair-minded employer then he or she will listen to the staff member without the need for the staff member to resort to some sort of formal application. But if the employer wants to be arrogant tough and dictatorial then the employee has the right to go to the employer with a formal request. But even then there are several reasons why the employer can reject such hours. 
So the bill is not Draconian. It is very fair-minded. There is no great shakes about this bill. I would have thought the National Party would rethink its position. When this bill had its first reading New Zealand First was very nervous about it. I am not sure whether we supported it at its first reading. We were a bit reluctant. We thought it was going this way and that way and that it was too limited. But we were persuaded to support its referral to the select committee to see whether we could improve it and that process was undertaken very diligently by the committee where as I said Sue Kedgley played a very practical monitoring role. We have I think a very reasonable bill as a result. 
New Zealand will be all the better for this legislation. I do not think it will turn the world upside down. The sun will still rise in the morning and in the fullness of time the National Party members will think: “Why the dickens didn’t we support that?”. They will say they agree with this. It will be like the situation with paid parental leave. They saw the light after a while as they have done on a number of issues. I know that Wayne Mapp regards himself as some sort of expert in industrial relations and he will go home and think: “Goodness me! That select committee and the Committee of the whole House made this bill a really workable bill and I wish National had supported it.” I could tell from Kate Wilkinson’s speech that her heart was not in it. She was reading a speech that she really did not believe. It did not come across with any conviction at all. As I said the world will not end as a result of this bill. 
I suggest that it will be of benefit to a few employees who work for somebody who is very rigid very arrogant or very assertive in his or her approach and who turns down an informal request. Most New Zealanders most employees will still be able to go to their employers and say that they have a situation at home with their children their mother their father or a person they are caring for and ask to change their hours and that will be done without any problems at all. [ 
Interruption 
] The honourable Wayne Mapp is so keen to get up and change the National vote—he is bursting at the seams there. He realises already that National has made a mistake and he wants to get to his feet. That is an encouraging sign. The light is beginning to penetrate. 
Hon Member 
: Don’t get my hopes up. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says: “Don’t get my hopes up.” This is very simple legislation. As I say I think it will be of significance to employees who are unfortunate enough to work for a rigid employer who is not caring. Those employees have a formal out. They can put their request in writing and it has to be formally looked at. That I believe will occur on relatively few occasions and those people will be all the better for it. New Zealand First supports this bill.