Kedgley Sue: Reinstatement of Business 
Kedgley Sue: Reinstatement of Business 
[Volume:628;Page:40] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 It is a cause of concern—in fact I think it should ring alarm bells—that the National Party has so little respect for and understanding of the democratic process that it would seek to use what is essentially a procedural motion to knock out members’ bills that have had their first reading and in some cases on which submissions have been received from all around the country. It is seeking to deny those persons who have made those submissions the right to be heard. 
We know that this is show-pony stuff. We know that this is the National Party flexing its muscles and showing us that it will rule the roost and rule this House. It is real show-pony stuff. Nevertheless it is an important democratic principle. I point out that through this procedural motion National is seeking to eliminate my Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. That bill has received 100 submissions. One hundred New Zealanders have made submissions on this bill and National is seeking to deny them the right to be heard. It is seeking to deny employers federations the Plunket Society and Parents Centres—all of those middle - New Zealand organisations—the right to be heard after they have gone to considerable trouble to make submissions. National members are seeking to undermine democracy in an attempt to be show ponies. 
Frankly I find it astonishing that a party that seeks to portray itself as family-friendly and that all throughout the election campaign talked about being family-friendly would oppose a bill that would give working parents a very simple minor right to request to work flexible hours. That is all my bill would do. Why would a party that promotes itself as family-friendly deny that right? I ask all the new National women members who I am delighted to see in the House today whether they really want to deny parents of children under the age of 6 their meagre right to be able to request to work flexible hours. Do those women want to say that every parent must work 40 or 50 hours without even the right to ask their employer for the ability to work flexible hours? I ask that of those members and also of the new male members of National such as Mark Blumsky the former Mayor of Wellington with whom I had the privilege of working. He has a young daughter. I am sure that he would support a parent having the right to request of his or her employer the ability to work flexible hours. The employer would be able turn down the request. That is all that my bill seeks to do. 
It is even more astounding that the United Future party which calls itself the family-friendly party—whose whole raison d’être is to be the family-friendly party—is opposing the right of parents to seek from their employers the ability to work flexible hours. Have no members noticed the recent survey by the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust which found overwhelmingly that the parents of New Zealand want the right to work flexible hours? They consider that the right to work flexible hours is one of the key issues for parents—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Copeland that I know that and I respect that he and New Zealand First members understand democracy. They understand that submitters have the right to be heard and I do respect that. But I just say that it is astounding that a party that purports to be family-friendly should somehow vote against a bill that would seek to allow parents to work flexible hours. It is frankly astonishing. 
This is show-pony stuff; fortunately it will be defeated. National has made its point; it has flexed its muscles. But surely all members should please think about the democratic principle here that members are undermining a precedent a convention a democratic process—that is the right of New Zealanders particularly those who have already made submissions to be heard and to be considered in this House.