SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : I move, That the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill addresses a huge but largely invisible and unspoken problem in our society—namely, the constant stress that many people experience as they try to cope with the competing claims of paid employment, raising a family, and other demands in their lives. Nobody is out in the streets marching about it yet—they are probably too exhausted—but the fact is that the chronic pressure many people experience as they seek to combine paid work and parenting has become one of the greatest sources of stress on families today.

Only a few decades ago, just one parent in a family was typically in the workforce working a regular 40-hour week, but these days it has become the norm for both parents to be in paid work in order to provide an income for their family, and many couples are each working 45 or more hours a week. New Zealand has one of the longest and most inflexible working hours cultures in the world. We work longer than the Japanese, for heaven’s sake, and we are on a par with Australia and America. Forty percent of us work more than 45 hours a week, 21 percent work more than 50 hours a week, and all of us, on average, work far longer than European workers. It is no wonder that many New Zealanders are suffering from chronic stress, chronic fatigue, and overload, and that this is having a debilitating effect on family life.

A recent Australian study found that Australia’s long and inflexible working hours culture is causing relationship breakdown, family dysfunction, hostile and ineffective parenting, and reduced child well-being. I am sure we would find exactly the same situation here. So that is why so many employees are calling for more flexible working arrangements that give them more say over where and when they work, and allow them to adjust their paid work to better suit their family and their other responsibilities, while still getting the job done.

The aim of the bill is to help to make this happen, and to encourage flexible working practices that help people strike a balance between work and family life. It will enshrine in law the right of employees with caring responsibilities to request flexible working hours, to place an obligation on employers to consider any such request seriously, and to provide a framework for negotiating that request in a way that does not undermine a business. Under the bill, fathers, mothers, guardians, grandparents, and people looking after a dependent adult will be able to apply for flexible working hours. They can apply to change the hours, the times, or the days they are required to work—to work part-time or compressed hours, or to just have some say over start and finishing times.

The bill is unashamedly based on UK legislation that has been so successful that it is supported by parties across the political spectrum. Eighty percent of requests made under the UK law have been granted, and a compromise has been reached in a further 10 percent of cases. The UK Children’s Minister is calling for the right to be extended to all employees, and the Conservative leader, David Cameron, is calling for it to be extended to all parents, and eventually even wider.

It speaks volumes that the Conservative Party in the UK, in stark contrast to the National Party here, strongly supports this legislation. Indeed, David Cameron is one of the leading champions of the legislation in the United Kingdom, and he argues that flexible working is good not only for employees and families but for business, and that this is the key to increasing productivity and modernising workplaces. He says: “The vital thing to understand is that flexible working should not be seen as a burden on business but as a powerful tool which, used intelligently, offers a route to competitive advantage and commercial success. Far from being a threat or some new corporate fad, it’s a hard headed response to new realities.”

Before the legislation was introduced in the United Kingdom it was vehemently opposed by the business community, for the same reason that some employers are opposing it here. They were worried it would be difficult to implement and would cause additional compliance costs. But in a recent survey 90 percent of employers reported no significant problems in complying with the new right.

I will quote from a recent report from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, an organisation with 127,000 members representing employers involved in management and personnel. The report states: “The existing right to request flexible working has been well received by employers, and has successfully encouraged rather than compelled employers to experiment with flexible working practices. Employers who are willing to accommodate … the lives their employees lead outside work … are finding they can fish in a wider pool for labour,”. Indeed, the institute is finding that the people they recruit are more motivated and stay longer. The report goes on to state: “Our research shows that most employers are happy to agree to the majority of such requests and that two in five employers have already extended the right to request further than the legislation requires.” As a result of that, even the employers are supporting an extension to what they call the “light touch” approach to employment law.

It is not just the United Kingdom that has embraced flexible working. Germany, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands all provide employees with a legal right to request flexible working or to reduce their working hours, and 90 percent of the 8,000 companies surveyed in Europe recently said that flexitime was available to their employees. The reason so many overseas companies are embracing this is that the benefits to business are tangible and real. Employees who are treated with respect and given more control over their hours of work are more motivated and productive. All the research bears this out. It shows that workplaces that offer flexibility are more attractive to employees, so it is easier to recruit and retain staff. There is less absenteeism, sick leave, and staff turnover, and, of course, there are reduced recruitment and training costs. Also, the recruitment pool is widened, particularly the return rate of employees with young children, which helps to ease skill shortages.

There are conflicting reports on how widely available flexible working arrangements are in New Zealand. Some say these arrangements are widely available, but most employees will say that despite all the rhetoric and lip-service, little has changed. Some organisations, such as EziBuy and Harrison Grierson, genuinely offer flexible working arrangements to their staff, and I say good on them. But in many cases claimed flexible working arrangements turn out to be little more than the ability to sometimes adjust a lunch break or go to the dentist.

Paul Callister, an employment expert, sums up the situation when he says: “Employers say they’re family friendly, and they probably believe it, but employees are grinding their teeth.” Many workers are reluctant even to broach the subject with employers for fear of being penalised in some way. As the Families Commission has pointed out, flexible working arrangements, where they do exist, are more common among white-collar workers and managers than they are for ordinary low-paid workers. That is why we need legislation to ensure that the right to request flexible working practices is extended to all workers with caring responsibilities, not just to a privileged few.

In supporting this bill we are making it clear that we believe that a request to adjust a work schedule to accommodate family or other requests is a legitimate request that a business should seek to accommodate, providing it will not be to the detriment of the business. We are also sending a signal that we want to reduce the stress and pressure on families, and encourage innovative workplaces that are more responsive to their employees’ needs.

Consensus is building around the need for more flexible working hours. Ninety percent of submissions to the Department of Labour called for more flexible working arrangements. A coalition comprising more than 50 legal, community, professional, and union organisations support the bill. Grey Power, the International Federation of Business and Professional Women, women lawyers associations, and the Council of Trade Unions all want the right to request that flexible working be extended to all parents with children under 18—rather than to parents with children under 5, as it states in the bill at present—and to all employees, and I do too. That is where things are heading in the UK, and we should be heading there, too.

I want to thank Mark Gosche, the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, Peter Brown, Darien Fenton, and Sue Moroney for their work and for the positive changes they have made to the bill. In particular, I thank the Minister of Labour, Ruth Dyson, for her support and, indeed, for her leadership on the bill. She proposed laying the bill on the Table while we conducted further research, which was an extremely positive initiative. That has been invaluable. I want to thank Labour, New Zealand First, United Future, the Māori Party, the Progressive party, Taito Phillip Field, and Gordon Copeland for supporting the bill.

I am confident that the bill will help employees find working arrangements that make striking a balance between work and life less stressful, and in so doing will address a major social problem in New Zealand. I am confident too that employers in New Zealand, as in the United Kingdom, will find that flexible working patterns are not something to fear or avoid, but rather something to embrace, because flexible working will make them more attractive to employees and enhance their workplaces. This, of course, will help to relieve congestion on our roads, because every person who has a flexible start time helps to reduce congestion. Thank you very much, and thank you to all the parties that are supporting the bill.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : In speaking to the second reading of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill I would like to preface my comments by saying that National believes that flexible working hours are a good idea in principle. We acknowledge the benefits of flexible working arrangements where possible, and we acknowledge that good employers who wish to keep their good employees may do so by offering such flexible working arrangements. We believe in flexible working arrangements. We are not debating here the desirability of flexibility; we are debating the necessity of prescriptive legislation. Good flexible working practices, however, should not be enshrined in inflexible, rigid, unworkable legislated processes and procedures. Good flexible working practices should be encouraged to position employers as more competitive employers, attractive to prospective employees.

I was interested to read recently the words of the Law Commission in its statement of intent. It stated: “the Commission continues to be concerned that there is insufficient questioning of whether legislation is the most appropriate vehicle for giving effect to policy. Proliferation of forms of law making may result in unnecessary legislation and over-regulation, resulting in a body of legislation that lacks coherence and may work against the need for law which is both understandable and accessible.” This is a classic example of the warning of the Law Commission. Can I also, however, congratulate the Law Commission, which has as one of its policies for 2007 and 2008 a policy to develop and implement a flexible working practices policy—not to legislate, but to develop and implement a flexible working practices policy. We applaud that. It is to “position the Commission as a more competitive employer,”. It is not to legislate, but to position the commission as a more competitive employer. That is what flexibility in the workplace should be about, not about putting in place a mass of rigid processes and procedures that both the employer and the employee have to wade through.

We think that common sense should be able to prevail. We have heard that this bill seeks to provide a statutory right to certain employees—not to all, but to those working over 10 hours a week or 40 hours a month—and they can request a variation to certain terms and conditions of their working arrangements, and place duties on their employers who receive such requests. Those employees who will be entitled to make such a request are those who have the care of children under 5, or disabled or dependent relatives. This is not a bill for everyone and in fact it could lead to employers employing those not caught by this legislation—not because they do not believe in flexibility but because that flexibility should not be at the expense of rigid processes and procedures.

An employer under this bill must deal with such a request as soon as possible but within 3 months, by advising whether the request is approved or refused, and if refused by explaining the reasons for that refusal. The grounds for refusal—and I admit they are reasonably sensible—are an inability to reorganise work among existing staff, an inability to recruit additional staff, a detrimental impact on quality, a detrimental impact on performance, an insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work, some planned structural changes, a burden of additional costs, a detrimental effect on the ability to meet customer demand, and an undermining—interestingly—of the terms of a collective agreement where the work done by the employee making the request comes within the coverage clause.

Employees at the moment can ask for flexibility and for a change in their working arrangements at any time. Employees have a duty under the good faith provisions of our existing legislation to reasonably consider that. Under this bill, the employee who has made such a request may not do so again for 12 months. Now, employees can do it whenever they like, and it has to be listened to. Under this bill, the time is limited to being within 12 months of the request. That is rigid, inflexible, and does not make sense.

If the request under this bill is refused, then we have processes and procedures. If the employee is dissatisfied, he or she may refer the refusal to a labour inspector, then it can go to mediation. If mediation does not resolve it, it can go to the Employment Relations Authority, which may order the employer to reconsider and may also order compensation of up to 8 weeks’ pay. There is also recourse, of course, from the Employment Court right up to the Supreme Court. This is all because an employee and an employer are not being accorded the common sense to organise their own working arrangements for the mutual benefit of both.

We are not convinced that this legislation is necessary, or that this addition of yet another piece of prescriptive legislation will increase the number of persons getting flexible working arrangements, because it does nothing. It does nothing to increase the ability of businesses actually to provide these arrangements.

It is also important, when considering legislation to be passed, that some consideration is given to the effect it will have, to the problem it is supposed to be addressing, to the solution it proposes, and to the question of whether that solution will actually work, may work, or may in fact do the exact opposite of what it is trying to achieve. Do we actually have a problem of lack of flexibility in our workplace? It was noted during the select committee process—in fact, I think by the Families Commission itself—that this bill was to educate, but that legislation was not necessarily the best way to educate and that no other alternative was being considered. No other alternative, other than legislation in relation to flexibility, has even been considered. This bill is not necessary. National does believe, however, in education on mutual benefits, and we do believe that education on the benefits of flexibility is necessary.

I want to refer to what the author of the bill stated before—that much of the support for this bill seems to rely on UK legislation. In fact, the commentary on the bill states: “Our consideration was influenced by legislation introduced in the United Kingdom in 2003, upon which this bill is based,”. But there is a word of caution, because the advice also included: “There are questions as to the extent of the impact of the UK flexibility legislation because there are methodological inconsistencies in DTI-sponsored research on the impact. The DTI results are not necessarily supported by research from other organisations. There is no accurate pre-legislation baseline of information to measure from, and often the surveys do not distinguish between those eligible to request and those not eligible.” We were further advised that the current set of labour, market, economic, and social conditions in New Zealand does not present a close enough match to any of the countries considered in this analysis for that country’s solution to be the obvious choice. I think it is dangerous, therefore, to rely solely on UK legislation as a precedent for our country. We should be making laws that are suitable for our employees and our employers.

I have to ask what the problem is. What is the mischief that this bill sets out to fix? We have heard—and some of the figures differ a wee bit, but I am not going to dispute those—that a survey of around 500 employers showed that flexibility in the workplace was implemented by 83 percent of companies—83 percent of companies already implemented flexibility in the workplace.

Hon Member: How many?

KATE WILKINSON: It was 83 percent. Some of that was through reduced work hours, some was through working from home, and some was study time. There was a New Zealand Herald survey, which members will know. The questionnaire asked: “Do you agree to flexible working hours?”. Eighty-six percent said yes, they did agree to flexible working hours—so do we. To the question: “Should flexible working hours be voluntary or mandatory?”, 98 percent said that flexible working hours should be voluntary, and that is what National agrees with.

I will quote from an example, because I have had a lot of traffic in mail opposing this bill. One employer said: “Put simply, I do not believe this amendment is necessary for our company or the great majority of companies in New Zealand. In our workplace any requests for changed workplace arrangements are considered carefully and we always go out of our way to assist whenever we can, and we do this voluntarily. We do not need a law to tell us to do this. We recognise our business could not operate without happy and valued employees. Many of our staff have young families and over the past few years I have strived for work/life balance for our staff.” Flexibility may be the way forward; legislating for it is not.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) : That was an extraordinary contribution. I am absolutely convinced that Kate Wilkinson has not yet read the bill as introduced or amended. There is no proposal to make flexible working hours compulsory—people actually have to want them before they request them. The proposal that the Green Party member Sue Kedgley has put before Parliament is the right to request and the employer’s fair consideration of that request.

I commend Sue Kedgley not only for introducing the bill but also for stimulating debate within this Parliament and throughout the country. I also acknowledge the considerable amount of effort that both the member herself and other members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee have put into rigorous consideration of this issue. Clearly, the National members on the committee are the exception.

It has been more than a year—14 months, in fact—since the committee first reported back to Parliament. The committee recommended that the Department of Labour take a year to do some research and to look at the issues facing New Zealand employers and employees that this bill was proposing to address. The result of that work has been very interesting. It showed clearly the significance of the issue of quality flexible work for business and unions. It also showed us how flexible work arrangements can benefit our communities, our economy, and our environment.

The Government has taken the opportunity during those 14 months to work with Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions in order to explore the issue of workplace flexibility in greater depth. I thank both Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions for their commitment to educating their respective constituencies and promoting the benefits of workplace flexibility. I also acknowledge the other groups that have been party to that debate and education.

It is clear that New Zealanders want, need, and deserve a better work-life balance than they currently have. Flexible work arrangements are a key part of that. Work-life balance is not just about delivering for employees, though; it is about our overall quality of life and our living standards. It is about quality flexible work being good for employers, because if they have an attractive workplace then they will be able to better attract and retain staff. As we know, in New Zealand’s labour market that is one of the biggest challenges for our employers. Flexible, responsive workplaces deliver productivity benefits and ease our skills shortages. They help New Zealand to compete globally for skilled workers, and enable more New Zealanders who want to be in a paid job to be so.

The results of the surveys of employees and employers that the Department of Labour instigated showed that flexible work arrangements, including flexible start and finish times, were consistently ranked among the most helpful initiatives for people to balance paid work with the rest of their life. The majority of employers do not see major barriers to improving flexibility. That is a good thing. In support of that, employees understand the business imperatives facing their organisations. In fact, we know that many New Zealand employers already offer their staff flexible working arrangements. But we know—and it was backed up by the research—that many do not.

Almost all of the respondents agreed that this issue was an important one. Eight-four percent of respondents to the survey supported legislating for the right to request flexible working arrangements. Many supported legislation on the basis that it would legitimise the issue and provide a clear, fair, and transparent process for requesting flexible working arrangements and for the consideration of that request. One-third of respondents felt that a combination of approaches would work best—that is, education, promotion, and legislation. That is why it is important that the Department of Labour, Business New Zealand, and the Council of Trade Unions continue to provide information and resources to our respective constituencies.

The bill provides certain groups of employees with the right to request flexible working arrangements—that is, a change to their hours of work, days of work, or place of work. The bill requires employers to consider the request, and provides specific grounds on which they can refuse. The bill also has a process for making and considering requests, including a requirement that an employee must explain what changes may be required to the employer’s arrangements. That aspect of the bill supports what we have heard during the consultation process, which is that, to be successful, flexible work arrangements need to suit the needs of all parties: the individual concerned, his or her colleagues, and the employer.

As Sue Kedgley mentioned in her earlier contribution, the bill is based on similar UK legislation. That legislation has been very successful. Eighty percent of requests in the UK for flexible working arrangements have been accepted—the majority accepted in whole and a smaller number accepted with compromise. Studies into the effect of the legislation in the UK show that employers are now very positive about it. Seventy-six percent said the impact on their business was negligible. Ninety percent said they had no problems at all complying with the new requirements. Almost as important is that the majority of employers showed that the legislation has had a positive impact on employee attitudes and overall morale.

The legislation in the UK has helped to change workplace cultures. The vast majority of UK employers now consider requests from employees that are not covered by the legislation. They have moved to a broader consideration. That finding shows how legislation can be a catalyst for positive change beyond the groups immediately affected. I am confident that New Zealand workplaces will be just as responsive to the need for flexibility and work-life balance.

There are many issues to be considered in legislation like this, including whether workers would have the right to revert to the original hours once their need, if it were a specific need for flexible hours, was considered. The committee has addressed that concern by amending the bill to require that a request must state whether the arrangements are to be permanent or temporary, and, if temporary, how long they would last. There is also the possibility that consideration will need to be given to possible impacts on collective agreements, where unions have specifically sought to regulate hours in order to prevent casualisation. Many collective agreements have specific full-time hours spelt out, and unions have fought hard to hold on to those provisions against the increasing tide of part-time and casual work.

The exclusion of some groups—for example, those who have the responsibility of caring for dependent family members such as elderly parents—was also a concern during earlier debate on this bill. I am pleased to note that this concern has also been addressed by the amendment of the committee to extend the provisions of the bill to include workers with dependent relatives.

A further issue is that of making the bill work in practice so that all workers are treated fairly. The system would not operate on a “first in, first served” basis. The select committee has stimulated a healthy and incisive debate, but there is still more work to be done. I welcome that. We want to be very confident that we can successfully implement the type of flexible work that the bill’s author envisaged.

I again thank the members of the committee for their considered deliberations on this bill. I particularly acknowledge the positive outcome of the committee’s earlier recommendation that research and consultation should be carried out before decisions were made on progressing the bill. That work, and the very useful submissions received from business, unions, and other interested parties, has helped make for a more robust bill that reflects the importance of flexibility in New Zealand workplaces. This member’s bill is another good example of our Labour-led Government working with other parties in an MMP environment to achieve the best solution for the diverse interests of all those affected by the proposed changes. Again, I thank Sue Kedgley for bringing this bill forward. I wish the next stages of the bill speedy progress.

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.