Fenton Darien: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12486] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is interesting listening to the National speakers on this issue tonight talking about what New Zealanders want and so on because I think that they live in some sort of cocoon. We have had thousands of letters from workers and organisations that say this Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is a good thing. Maybe what National members do not understand and need to get their heads around is that we have flexibility in our workplaces all right but it has been going all one way. That is what this bill is about; it is addressing the imbalance. 
I particularly want to address new section 69AAEA which is proposed to be inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Minister Ruth Dyson. It lists the grounds on which an employer may refuse a request. It amends new section 69AAE(2) and (3) which is to be inserted into the Employment Relations Act by clause 6A of the bill to omit the ground relating to undermining the terms of a collective employment agreement. Before National members rejoice about that it replaces it with a requirement under the new section 69AAEA(3) that an employer must refuse a request if it is from an employee who is bound by a collective agreement and the working arrangements that the employee requests would be inconsistent with the collective agreement. This is a very important provision and I am very pleased it is there. 
New Zealand has no working-time limits. We have no maximum or minimum hours of work. We have no legislative provisions for overtime pay or for weekend work. Our breaks are not even legislated for yet. With Labour Day and the celebration of the 8-hour day coming up this weekend I think it is very timely to reflect on these issues. 
We all know that the reforms made to the national employment legislation during the 1990s delivered the ultimate in flexibility. But “the ultimate” meant no protection for workers—no protection in bargaining and no protection of working hours. Working hours were decided at the whim of the employer and dismissal resulted if the employee did not agree. So when members opposite say that employees can just ask it does not work like that because National has set up a situation where workers are fearful to ask and what should seem like a simple thing is no longer so. The outcomes are serious not least on workers and their families. National directly caused many of the problems we have been debating during the stages of this bill. 
The challenge we have today is to combine greater flexibility with the need to maximise job security; the two have to go together. It is interesting because when management and unions work together that combination is more likely to be reached and the real potential of working-time reorganisation and flexibility is more likely to be realised—and it is done through collective bargaining. Working hours are critically important to workers and are often at the top of the list of their concerns when it comes to bargaining. Usually their concerns are about unpaid overtime long working hours shift work and weekend work. Bargaining for agreed working time and collective agreements is the main way that workers today have a say in their working hours and often collective agreements provide the only instruments with a sensible limit on working hours. 
That is why the amendment proposed on the Supplementary Order Paper that an individual right to request flexible working hours should not be able to undermine collective agreements and arrangements that have been made between a union and an employer on behalf of all of that workforce is really important. Key to the success of this and this would be foreign to the National Party is the detailed cooperation between management and unions and that is what this clause supports. Instead of approaching flexible working arrangements as a benefit to be handed to out to those individual workers with deserving special circumstances—which is what a nice boss like the member over there would do—the focus needs to be on finding solutions for everyone including improving business competitiveness job security and the balance between work and the personal lives of those in the workforce. Most important collective agreements have proven that far from limiting flexibility the regulation of hours can enable a sensible compromise to ensure that everyone wins—not just the employer but all the workers and their families as well. 
The problem with a lack of proper control over working hours is that it continues a vicious cycle of inequality. I love hearing the National members going on about this; this is a sensitive issue for them I can hear that. The reality is that when one person works long hours that person’s partner often has to reduce his or her hours to look after family responsibilities—and members can guess who that usually is; it is usually the woman in the relationship. This issue has an ongoing influence on pay rates pay inequity and career inequity for women. So as we enjoy Labour Day this weekend and the members opposite have the day off I hope we all take a moment to pause and reflect on the current expectations of the labour market where work comes before workers.