Brown Peter: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:12067] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have listened to the debate thus far with interest. I have listened particularly to the National Party because as far as I can determine it is the only party in this House that is opposing the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. ACT which I thought would be opposing the legislation is working flexible hours already so clearly that party agrees with it. 
Kate Wilkinson made a point. She said that currently all employees have the right to ask for flexible working hours or something along those lines. That is true. I do not think anybody is arguing that it is not. But she is missing the whole point of the purpose clause. There is an obligation in the purpose clause for the employer to consider that request seriously. That is the whole guts of this bill. The employee can already make a request but under this bill the employer will have to consider it seriously. I compliment Sue Kedgley on being so amenable and so flexible on this bill. I have tried to work it out and I think just about every clause has been put under the microscope and has been either struck out and replaced or revamped in some way and Sue has taken it all on board. 
 That leads me to compliment the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee of which I was a member on its determination and dedication to get the bill right. The purpose clause as introduced was totally unacceptable. It was too restrictive concerning whom it applied to—employees caring for children under 5 years and disabled children up to 18 years. It was bureaucratic insomuch as employers effectively could not refuse to change employees’ working hours or had very limited reasons for doing so. And it was very limited in whom it would apply to insomuch as the arrangement had to be permanent as I understand it. The select committee changed all that with Sue Kedgley’s agreement and dare I say blessing. That made the purpose clause much more acceptable. 
New Zealand First opposed the bill as introduced but we are big enough ugly enough and tough enough to say that the bill before us now has got it right. That is what National members should be doing. They should not sit over there and say that all employers are fair-minded people from the word go. In fact Wayne Mapp said the reverse. He said that far fewer employers were wedded to 19th century thinking. I think that is what he said and that implies that some employers would dismiss any informal request from an employee who wanted to look after a person who is ill—dismiss it without any regard at all. That is an admission by Wayne Mapp; I see he is nodding his head. The sole reason we need this bill is that some employers would deny such a request come what may. 
This bill is about the right of a person who looks after another person to request flexible working arrangements so that the person can do that. I cannot see anything wrong with that. Some employers have written to me and to my party implying almost that the world will come to an end if this bill is passed. That is not so. This is very dare I say it innocuous legislation. It fits into New Zealanders’ mainstream thinking. New Zealand is a compassionate country. It is a country filled with compassionate people. If there is anything sad about this bill it is that we have to produce it because some people are not as considerate and compassionate as they perhaps should be. Some people do not value their staff as they should. 
It is somewhat hypocritical of the National Party to oppose this bill because National members work under— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please withdraw that comment. 
PETER BROWN 
: I withdraw the comment. It is somewhat unusual for National members to oppose this bill because National members as we all do work under the Standing Orders of this House. We do not negotiate them; we sit around the table and agree to them. They allow the 48 National members to have 12 members away from the House at any one time for any reason whatsoever with no questions asked—unless the whip asks a question. Nobody else in the House can question where those members are. The National Party is allowed to have 12 members away and their votes still count. I want to prevail upon National members. I know many of them personally. I know Wayne Mapp; he has been here the same length of time as me. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: You have learnt a lot haven’t you? 
PETER BROWN 
: I thank the member. I ask the National Party to rethink its position. We are not bringing the world to an end with this bill. We are producing legislation that is fair-minded in the interests of firstly people who are looking after other people and secondly people who are being cared for. We are not making any great imposition on employers. We are giving employers until 1 July 2008 to come to terms with this. I think the National Party should rethink its position. I think this bill should go through this House supported by everybody here with perhaps the exception of ACT which is not present tonight and Gordon Copeland who is not present either. I know I should not say who is present and who is not but he is giving his vote by proxy. This is very reasonable legislation and New Zealand First supports it and supports the purpose clause.