Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15513] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 As the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Trevor Mallard has just outlined this Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill has two main parts to it. Firstly it requires employers to provide facilities and breaks for employees who wish to breastfeed and the second part relates to rest breaks and meal breaks. 
In the media releases following the announcement of this bill—which incidentally was on Easter Sunday—we note comments such as: “ ‘This is a very uncontroversial matter—in thousands of workplaces across the country employers and employees make sensible agreements in their mutual interests without having written rules’ … Inflexible rules advantaged unions not employees or workplaces … The Government should do research to see if a problem existed … [We have] not seen any evidence that required a new law.” I was also interested to read the press release from the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union which stated: “The old Factories and Commercial Premises Act used to provide for breaks during the working day but that went in 1992 … and there was nothing put in its place. The proposed new law marks another win by union members for every working New Zealander.” I would like to know why if it is such an issue of fundamental fairness and healthy work practices as the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union states it has taken 9 years for such legislation to be introduced into the House. There have been ample opportunities with all the various amendments to the Employment Relations Act under the watch of this Labour and union - led Government yet there has not been one mention of meal breaks and breastfeeding facilities. How much effort have unions really made to get meal breaks and breastfeeding facilities enshrined in law or is this perhaps more opportunistic election-year posturing?  
The Minister has said categorically that new laws are needed and “We wouldn’t be doing it if there wasn’t an issue” and I would have to say that we are very interested in getting some evidence that there is an issue and that new laws are needed. Even the union acknowledges that nearly all unionised workers already have paid breaks and lunch hours written into their agreements. In fact the explanatory note itself acknowledges that little is known about whether break provisions are included in the individual employment agreements that cover a majority of the workforce. One would have thought that some research would be done before the Government introduced this bill to the House to corroborate any need for the bill in the first place. This bill seems to have been drafted in the anticipation that there may be an issue but there may not be an issue. Is there a problem or is this merely a solution looking for a problem? National will be looking forward to seeing some objective research on this matter to ascertain whether there is a problem.  
National will cautiously support this bill going to a select committee for scrutiny. By and large it codifies what is already happening in most workplaces. We need to be satisfied that there is a problem and that new laws are needed. We also need to be very careful that the bill does not impose additional costs on employers and another set of processes and procedures to navigate through that it does not restrict the freedom of employees without giving them appreciable benefits and that it does not have unintended consequences such as putting up a barrier to employing women. The bill uses the phrase “reasonable and practicable”—employers must ensure that “so far as reasonable and practicable in the circumstances” appropriate facilities are provided in the workplace for breastfeeding and appropriate breaks—and we will want to examine what that phrase actually and practically means for both the employer and the employee. I would ask what would be considered to be an appropriate breastfeeding break and what reasonable and practicable facilities are—for example what breastfeeding facilities would be required for a breastfeeding travelling saleswoman? We support efforts to encourage New Zealand women to breastfeed. We appreciate that sensible workplaces should be making all reasonable attempts to attract and retain valuable female employees but we also want to ensure that we are not creating a culture where breastfeeding mothers feel under pressure to return to work too quickly.  
National will be looking at these newly announced provisions very carefully and very cautiously. Employers can work out the issues they address for themselves without having another set of prescriptive and inflexible processes and procedures to navigate through. If there is a problem then we should be looking for a solution but if there is a solution should we be looking for the problem? We need to be prudent as to unintended consequences—as to what burden is being imposed on both employers and employees when perhaps common sense should prevail. We support choice but we must be mindful that legislation attempting to support choice may indeed hinder that choice. National will be expecting the select committee officials and the ministry to show us why this law is needed what the problem is and the extent of the problem that this legislation is attempting to address.