Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill

It is my pleasure to stand and take a call in the Committee stage of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill in relation to clause 1, which, of course, is the title. The title to this bill has changed. It was originally the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. It has been expanded to deal with flexible working arrangements. Those arrangements are also defined further on in the bill. In relation to an employee—not, interestingly enough, in relation to an employer as well; it is only in relation to an employee—those flexible working arrangements mean flexibility either in terms of hours of work, the days of work, or the place of work at, for example, the employee’s home or place of work.

Flexibility, which is really the integral part of this bill, is important. Flexibility in the workplace is important, and National acknowledges that. We acknowledge that in order for employees to be successful, they need flexibility in their working arrangements. But that does not mean that this needs to be legislated for, and we believe that common sense can prevail.

This bill, the title of which has changed, is, as has been referred to in relation to other bills, a solution looking for a problem—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but we are debating clause 1. It is very limited; it is just the title.

The title—correct.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes.

I appreciate that, Madam Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It is a very limited debate.

It is a very limited debate. The title is really about the flexibility of those working arrangements. We believe in flexibility, and, although we accept the title of the bill, we do not believe that flexible working arrangements should be, or indeed can be, legislated for.

The title clause states that the “Act is the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Act”. The original title dealt with “Hours”. Clearly, the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee believed, and many submitters believed, that the title had to be more reflective of the types of things that people should be able to discuss with their employer. After all, this is about making arrangements with an employer and having the right purely to request them.

It is rather amusing to hear that the National Party is in favour of flexible working arrangements, but does not think workers should have a right to request them in law. That is beyond belief. National says it is in favour of flexible working arrangements, but, oh no, no way should workers have the right by law to request those from an employer! We heard a great many submissions on this very good bill from people who gave ample evidence of the need for flexible working arrangements.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Point of order, Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member was straying a bit there. The title is what we are talking about. The member had been all right up to that point. I am sure that was Tau Henare’s point of order.

It is just that I have to teach the Opposition how to do this. I have been in title debates many a time, and I do not sit down after 2 minutes like the previous member, who ran out of any sort of thoughts about how to debate the title.

The word “Arrangements” is in the title because people want to be able to discuss arrangements. They may involve flexible working hours or they may involve flexible working days. They may involve all sorts of flexibility that the title seeks to actually describe by replacing the word “Hours” with “Arrangements”. I was just trying to illustrate—for the Opposition—that there is a need for a right in law, which is why we are changing the employment relations legislation. Obviously, we want to describe it in a way such that people will know they can discuss suitable arrangements for work, taking into account the family obligations they have as caregivers for their children, or for their adult parents or relatives who are disabled.

So “Arrangements” can mean all sorts of things. They may in fact assist employers greatly to retain skills that would otherwise be lost from the workplace and from businesses. [Interruption] Bob Clarkson agrees, because he has been on our select committee, and he knows the need for an employer to be able to sit down sensibly with a worker to discuss suitable arrangements that would keep that person in his or her job. That member knows from working in the construction industry how difficult it is to hold on to employees when there are other jobs elsewhere that might pay better. But people might stay in Bob Clarkson’s employment if they can, in fact, get flexible work arrangements.

So “Flexible Working Arrangements” is a very good description of this bill. That is why the select committee decided to change the original description, which just narrowly described “Hours”. We want to give a clear indication to workers out there that they have the right to request changes to the original set of conditions and terms that were laid down in their agreements with their employers when they started out, because their circumstances have changed. People’s circumstances change all the time in life, sometimes expectedly and sometimes unexpectedly.

I cannot imagine why any party in this House would be opposed to this title, or to this bill, or why any party would not like to alter the title. I am looking forward to Dr Wayne Mapp trying to explain why people should be afraid of this title and this bill, which is purely enabling people to arrange things to suit their personal circumstances with their employers, and giving them the right to request that their employers listen to those requests. What is scary about that? Why would anybody be afraid of that? It should not be something that anybody should fear. We will probably get a speech from the National side that this is communism. That is what one of those members said when we came to pass a law that dealt with the rights of workers to be paid for the jobs they do. This is just unbelievable!

💬 Paula Bennett: Is this about the title? Come on!

There is another National member screeching in the back. She pretends that she knows something about employment. We have yet to see any knowledge come out of her mouth—only vitriol and stupidity.

There is a fundamental reason why National is opposed to the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill, and it is contained right there in the title clause. The reason is that the title clause refers to “this Act”. Acts are things that are mandatory, where State power is used to force people into arrangements they do not want.

The members on the other side, of course, laugh about that—they laugh about it. They just love State power; that is why they are in the Labour Party. They want oppressive State power whenever they can get it. Their recourse, of course, on every little issue is, in collaboration with the Green Party, to introduce legislation. If something has to be done to give people the ability to talk to each other—that is what this bill is about—they do it with legislation. Well, how about trust? What is wrong with trust? What is wrong with allowing employers and employees to voluntarily speak to each other?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Come back to the title.

If we did not have an Act that had mandatory State power, all we would need is the ability for people to talk to each other on a freely negotiated basis. There would be no State coercion and State power, and there would be absolutely no need for this kind of legislation.

Our objection to this legislation is fundamentally because it imposes obligations by law and with sanctions. That does violence to the integrity of the employment contract, which is a freely negotiated arrangement between employer and employee. You know, in the modern marketplace there is actually a balance of power between the parties.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the title.

But this Government and this Green Party think the solution—as is clearly set out in clause 1—is to have an Act. Acts are about forcing people to do things they would otherwise not do. That is the fundamental feature of any legislation. Acts force people to do things they would otherwise not do, and they are required to do them only because they will face sanctions—fines, penalties, and other strictures. All of that means that Labour and the Green Party have to have an Act. And that really shows the fundamental difference between that side of the Chamber and this side of the Chamber, does it not?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Could I just remind the member that we are talking about a title of an Act. Please come back to the title.

Well, the title of the Act is—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is all we are talking about. There is plenty of opportunity—

—about arrangements that are forced on people by legislation. That is actually what the title is about. It is about forcing arrangements on people through mandatory legislation. I have to be as clear as possible on this. The title clause stated: “This Act is the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Act”, which sounded like a voluntary concept. But “Hours” has been changed to “Arrangements”, and this is the kicker. It is State power and State coercion doing violence to freely negotiated arrangements between employer and employee in the modern employment environment. There actually is some level of equality of bargaining power in the modern, contemporary workforce.

You know, we are not in sweatshops any more. We do not wear sackcloth any more. We are in the 21st century. We do not need this legislation. We do not need an Act. We do not need legislation that forces people into agreements they would otherwise not make. National is very clear on this. We tell people to voluntarily negotiate agreements. In truth, that works virtually all of the time. We do not need an Act, we do not need compulsion, we do not need mandatory sanctions, and we do not need these forced arrangements where employers have no choice but to agree to propositions put up by parties, because if they do not agree, there will be sanctions. Employers do not have the option to simply say no, walk away, and say it does not suit them. That is not a possibility, because they are then forced into negotiation, mediation, and, ultimately, right through to the Employment Court. I see the promoter of the bill shaking her head against that, but that is what is forced in this agreement.

I seek to speak briefly, goaded by the previous speaker Wayne Mapp. First, I would like to say that the reason that we have changed the title of the bill from Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill to Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is so that we can accommodate people’s requests to change, if they so wish, the location as well as the hours and time of their work. That is the reason why we have sought to change the title of the bill, and it is very simple.

It is extraordinary that the previous speaker said this legislation is using State power to force people into an arrangement they do not want. This is arguably the most light-handed legislation to come before the House in recent years. All that it provides for is the right to request—the right to request—flexible working arrangements. And it is very fair legislation, because not only does it give employees the right to make requests but it protects employers as well. Far from forcing employers to accept requests, it gives them seven or eight grounds to decline them.

The other point I would like to make briefly is that it is extraordinary that the National Party in New Zealand is opposing this most light-handed legislation when its equivalent party, the Conservative Party in England, is one of the leading proponents of flexible working arrangements legislation. The member Kate Wilkinson is shaking her head, but I would like to quote briefly from David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party in England—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): You are not speaking to the title.

Well, I was just rebutting the comments from the previous speaker. I will quote from David Cameron later, when we come to discuss the substance of the bill. But I say it is extraordinary that the Conservative Party in England embraces such legislation and sees it as a way, a tool, of modernising work places, of helping families to balance the competing demands of paid work and families—that party is embracing such legislation—and the National Party here in New Zealand is opposing something as simple as the right to request flexible working arrangements. We have heard a lot from the National Party about how it is family-friendly and is supporting children, yet it cannot even bring itself to support this bill. Really, that is extraordinary.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There is plenty of opportunity to discuss the substance of the bill. At the moment we are trying to keep to a debate on the title.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa i te Whare.

💬 Paula Bennett: Kia ora.

Kia ora, Paula. I support the proposal to change the title of the bill from Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill to Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. I would like to ask whether it is possible to backdate the bill to just before I went up to Alice Springs, so that my working conditions and the location of my work could be moved from being in this House, and I could continue with my parliamentary activities in Alice Springs. As an indigenous member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau I was doing my best to understand the needs of the indigenous people of the Northern Territory. I think that flexible working arrangements might also be a good idea to ensure that certain other members of this House can spend a lot more time at home and not bother us in this Chamber.

Flexible working arrangements are something I myself have been very keen on in the last 20 years. Although I heard Mr Mapp talking about how they will mean death and destruction for businesses, I know from experience that arrangements allowing people to work in a location that improves their productivity is good for the business. It has been good for business when freely negotiated with the employer and freely agreed upon by the employer. I know from experience that it works.

I just want to say that flexible working arrangements are a step up from flexible working hours. They encourage people to give more to the businesses for which they work if they can see that the businesses are willing to give back. Whoever suggested that the title be changed from flexible working hours to flexible working arrangements must have been somebody incredibly intelligent. It must have been one of the two members here next to me, Pita Sharples or Tariana Turia. It is a very good idea and will enhance the purpose of the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Speaking on the title of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill, I think that some people have missed the point about the title and about what the amendment was about. Sue Kedgley has pointed it out, but I want to repeat it. When the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee discussed this bill and discussed amending the title we realised that talking just about hours and days of work was not enough. If we are genuinely talking about flexible work then people need to have the right to request flexible work in other places.

Many of us have grown up in the times when we were told that one day in our future, life was going to be very different because technology would take over and we would all work shorter hours and we could work from home and so on. I am still waiting for that day. Certainly, some of the more progressive employers that we see at the higher end of the market recognise that working from home is a productive way of accommodating flexible work needs for employees, often after they have just had a baby and are still at home caring for the child or they have childcare responsibilities—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: After they’ve had 14 weeks’ paid parental leave.

Or when they have had 14 weeks’ paid parental leave, which this Labour-led Government, along with its partners, introduced and the National Party opposed.

💬 Shane Jones: They don’t want parents to be assisted.

That is right.

We recognise also that there is a growing responsibility for our ageing population. Many, many people are going to have to care for their older adults at home. I have just recently had that experience through my partner, whose father was in hospital and his older mother at home. The responsibilities have fallen on my partner, both for visiting his father in hospital and for having to take care of his older mother. He has a very good employer who allowed him to have flexible arrangements around his working hours—

💬 Paula Bennett: Is this about the title?

Yes, absolutely—and flexible arrangements that allowed him to do his work from other places. The title is about that.

The difference between arrangements and working hours is very significant. The select committee certainly took that on board in recommending that the word “Hours” in the phrase “Flexible Working Hours” be replaced with the word “Arrangements”, because it is a more accurate description of what the bill is all about and what we are trying to do in introducing modernising legislation, perhaps to catch up with some other countries, and accepting that New Zealand has fallen a little bit further behind other countries in having legislation that enables the right to request flexible arrangements.

The title is all about that right. It is about flexible working arrangements but it is also simply about the right to request them. I know we will get on to that in further debate on the substance of the bill. The title is absolutely about working arrangements, working in other places, being able to request different working hours and part-time or shift work, and about being able to have genuine flexibility that meets an arrangement with employers. “Arrangements” is a modern word that is used in other employment legislation. It fits in with our current employment legislation, which members would see if they took a look at collective arrangements and other things. As such, I think the change in title is entirely appropriate.