Brown Peter: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:641;Page:11622] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It is a worrying time tonight. In the relatively short period of a couple of hours we have had two bills from the Greens—and they both make common sense. Surprisingly still New Zealand First is supporting them both. I do not know what is going wrong but we might be in for some big problems. 
I want to say to Sue Kedgley that I admire her attitude and her approach to the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill because when she presented it to this House it did not have anything going for it. In my view she had got it wrong. The purpose clause in the original bill—I will read it out—stated: “The purpose of this Act is to grant qualifying employees the right to change their working hours where they have full-time care of—…”.She admitted that there was a drafting error there. She also admitted at select committee—and this takes some guts I have to say—that there were limited reasons for the employers to decline such a request. It seemed to us that the original bill had it passed had justifications for arguments between employees and employers. I compliment Mark Gosche on coming up with the idea to have a year’s grace period when employers unions and what have you spoke about the bill and the bill has been significantly amended. 
I compliment not only Sue Kedgley on that change but all the members of the select committee including the National members. Kate Wilkinson comes across to me as a straight talker but tonight what she said was a little bit round the bend. What did she say today? She said that a person must not make a request for flexible hours more than once a year or something along those lines. But she sat in the select committee when New Zealand First said that provision was not adequate and not fair and that we had to change it—and we did change it. Clause 69AAD(2) states: “The employee is not entitled to make another request under this Part to his or her employer earlier than 12 months after the date on which the previous request was made.” That is quite different from saying “must not” make another request. 
When I was an employer I took the attitude that if my guys wanted a bit of flexibility I would listen to them and go along with it. Indeed one of my guys was heavily involved in a particular sport. He was such a pain in the backside that when he requested to go off I said that he could go and play the sport to his heart’s content but that he had to make up the difference when he came back—and he did in more ways than one. He proved to be a great asset and I let him go to play his sport. Some employers have got the impression—and it is quite a wrong impression—that this bill stops people going along to their employer to ask whether they can have flexible working hours for any reason under the sun. There is nothing in this bill that prohibits that—and I see that Sue Kedgley is nodding. They can go along any time any day and say that they have a commitment and ask whether they can have a bit of flexibility in their hours of work for whatever reason—and that might be a social reason or whatever. 
Let us be absolutely clear all this bill does is give the statutory right for people to go along to their employer to request or request in writing flexible hours for a particular reason—and they are all reasons around care. Let me give those reasons. Those reasons as stated in clause 69AA(a) are if the person has the care of “(i) a child or children under 5 years: (ii) a disabled child or children: (iii) a dependent relative or relatives:”. It is reasonable to have the statutory right to request flexible working hours for goodness’ sake! That is pretty basic stuff is it not? The members are nodding in agreement. 
There are a number of reasons why those particular requests can be denied. Clause 69AAE(3) states that the employer can refuse on the grounds of (a) inability to reorganise work among existing staff: (b) inability to recruit additional staff: (c) detrimental impact on quality: (d) detrimental impact on performance: (e) insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work: (f) planned structural changes: (g) burden of additional costs: (h) detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand:”. Those are some of the reasons why the employer can refuse to grant the request. Is this not perfect common sense? It saddens me that apparently there are some employers in this country to whom the employee with a disabled child a child under 5 or a dependent relative can say that he or she needs a bit of flexible working time for a period of months or whatever and the employer says “No go take a running jump.” If that is what National wants this society to turn into then I say that I am sorry to hear it. 
It is quite reasonable to give people in those circumstances a statutory right to ask formally for this sort of flexible working arrangement. That is quite a reasonable request. When I hear Kate Wilkinson tell me that 86 percent of employers agree to flexible working hours I ask what the problem is. [ 
Interruption 
] The member says there is a problem. I wait to hear the next speaker tell me what the problem is because if 14 percent do not accept flexible working hours— 
Paula Bennett 
: Why use a sledgehammer approach when it’s already enacted? 
PETER BROWN 
: I did not quite catch that. If the member puts the question to me I will answer it. 
Paula Bennett 
: Why use a sledgehammer approach when it’s already enacted? 
PETER BROWN 
: This is a sledgehammer? Oh my goodness! Let me acquaint the member with another clause in this bill again as a result of New Zealand First intervention and again with the agreement of Sue Kedgley. This whole thing will be reviewed in 2 years. If the member calls that a sledgehammer—well then! 
Let me just talk about what the review is likely to turn up. It could highlight some problems. It could highlight working arrangements that are not working. It could highlight the need for the legislation to be amended and restrict it. Equally so it could highlight the need for the legislation to be expanded. A review after 2 years is quite a reasonable approach to this type of legislation. How dare National members say this is a sledgehammer approach. They would not know a sledgehammer if they saw one. 
I have heard people refer to the UK legislation. I know that the select committee was informed of various things about the UK legislation. Sue Kedgley has told us how well the UK legislation is working. I have to say that if it is working that well over there we do not need to copy it but we could follow it by example. I am nervous of saying too much because whenever I talk highly of the UK or what happens there people tend to sing in unison “Well go back there then”. 
Hon Member 
: No no we want you here. 
PETER BROWN 
: Thank you. I have to say that I will disappoint a few members. I have no intention of going back there—only for a holiday or to watch Arsenal play a game from time to time. I am here in this country and I am asking employers in this country to be fair to their employees. 
This is reasonable legislation it will not put employers out of business it will not add to the bureaucracy. The labour inspector—[ 
Interruption 
] The member over there laughs. I bet she has never employed anybody in her life. The labour inspector will solve the problem 99 percent of the time on the shop floor. Everything has been made convenient. This gives people with children and dependent relatives the advantage of formally requesting flexible working hours. 
In conclusion this legislation does not go far enough. New Zealand First will also be supporting an amendment for parents of sick children under the age of 18 who request flexible working hours. Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Debate interrupted.