Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12066] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call in relation to this part of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. Most people including those in the National Party support the concept of flexibility and we appreciate that quality flexible work is important. We know there is a general consensus that flexible work is important to all New Zealanders not just to parents and not just to people with caring responsibilities. Quality flexible work is important for individuals organisations families and communities. But flexible working legislation such as this bill is an oxymoron. We support flexibility—of course we do—but employees already have an existing right under the provisions for good faith in the Employment Relations Act to ask for flexible working arrangements. This legislation is simply unnecessary. We value flexibility. We know that forward-looking businesses also value employees for the contribution they bring to the business not just for the hours they work. We value giving people choice about how they work if they deliver the same outputs because that is good for business. But what we do not agree with is legislation instead of education. 
The author of this bill is about to herald to us that the example to follow is the legislation in the United Kingdom. Comparisons I have to warn members although sometimes useful can also be misleading. If we look at the UK report we see there are significant differences and significant discrepancies. The official departmental report itself referred to methodological inconsistencies in the UK research stating that the results are not necessarily supported by research and that there was no accurate pre-legislation baseline of information to measure from. It further advised that the current set of labour market and economic and social conditions in New Zealand did not present a close enough match to any of the countries considered in the analysis for that country’s solution. So it is very dangerous to simply mimic the UK legislation and say it will work in New Zealand. 
In fact if we look at the UK report we will see some of the cautions in that report. It said that small firms may find it more difficult to accommodate some types of requests than larger firms in similar lines of work. It states: “It is possible that carers who are not covered by the legislation and whose employers do not open flexible working opportunities to other staff may resent employees that are entitled to make a request … This could lead to lower morale amongst these staff in the workplace.” This bill is limited in that respect. 
There is a compliance cost to employers. In the UK it has been estimated that on average it will take 2 hours of employee time and 3 hours of management time to process a request that is dealt with formally. At the moment it would take less than half that time to deal with a request informally under the provisions of good faith that already exist in our employment relations legislation. The proposal involves costs to businesses—implementation costs and procedural costs—and we will deal with those. These matters can go as far as the Supreme Court so it is not a light-handed measure it is not non-onerous and there are costs associated with accommodating such requests when they are accepted. 
Mr Gosche who is very very vocal talked about productivity. He talked about how flexible working arrangements such as these and strictly legislated flexible working arrangements will improve and enhance productivity. But he himself should read the UK report which said that overall only 44 percent of firms have experienced a net positive impact on productivity as a result of the flexible working arrangements that have been legislated for there. Fewer than half the firms have experienced a positive impact on productivity. 
We have had mention of Suffrage Day; we knew it would come up. It is a day that we do celebrate and one that we certainly should celebrate.