GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that the usual situation when a debate resumes is that a member picks up his or her allotted time and concludes, and if the member is not here, then he or she simply does not have that time available to them. But no one could have predicted that the Government was eventually going to grant leave for Mrs Kedgley’s bill to proceed. I wonder whether we might give Mr Prebble the opportunity, should he come down to the House during the course of the debate before a vote is taken, to have his 4 minutes and 55 seconds. It might also be useful if Mrs Kedgley was able to perhaps start this rather extraordinary debate, notwithstanding her previous speech—[Interruption] I say to Mrs Pettis that I know that, and that member knows that other people have been booted out of the House this afternoon for interrupting points of order, but I will not make a big deal of it, because I know that she was just trying to help the House. I think it would be useful, and I so seek leave, for the Chair to recognise the mover of the bill so that we can all know exactly what it is all about.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just advise members that Ms Kedgley has already spoken to the bill. She can do so again only with the leave of the House. Is Ms Kedgley seeking leave to do that?

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : Yes, I would be happy to seek leave to give a very brief, explanatory introduction, because I have already given 10 minutes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Leave has been sought. Whether it is granted is up to the House. Is there any objection to that—

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : I wish to make a point of clarification before we put the question on the leave—as other members on the other side of the House quite regularly do. I point out that this debate actually gives a right of reply of 5 minutes at the end for Ms Kedgley, and if she takes that now, it will close the debate. I am quite happy if that occurs, if the Opposition is, as well.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to disabuse Mr Gosche, but Ms Kedgley is seeking leave for additional time to speak, to bring members up to speed, given the extraordinary nature of this debate. If leave is granted, then that extra time is not deducted off her final speech, and in no way does it suggest that the debate would be shut down.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I would like to caution members about points of order. Standing Order 84(3) indicates that there is to be no comment at all during points of order. Now, the House has allowed that in order that the person who takes the point of order can do so, but in doing so that person must realise that he or she must not bring into the point of order any conjecture that will lead to disorder. So can we please have silence during points of order.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The leave that was sought was in order for us to move forward from a difficult position. Leave was sought by Nick Smith, and then moved further by Gerry Brownlee, to allow Sue Kedgley to make a contribution. The point that I want to make to the House is this. We are trying to move forward so that we can actually get back to the Government’s business, and the Government has seen that as a sensible way forward. What we are now asking is that Sue Kedgley be given an extra 5 minutes, or whatever time she needs—less than that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am aware of that.

JOHN CARTER: —and that Mr Prebble’s contribution follow if he comes down to the House. It is just to help the House move forward.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : The point I raised, for the benefit of the House, is that Sue Kedgley has the right to make a reply, and using it would close the debate. I wanted to make sure the House was aware of that. I am absolutely surprised that members are unaware of this debate, and I am particularly surprised at members of the ACT party. I was here listening to the debate last night, and I participated in it. The ACT party insisted upon the debate carrying on last night, and I am absolutely amazed that ACT members do not know anything about it, and are requiring Ms Kedgley to now—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will now be seated. We are now getting into debating material. It is my understanding that Sue Kedgley has sought leave for an additional speech, and it is up to the House as to whether it grants it. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not clear on the seeking of leave, but I understood that leave was sought for Mr Prebble to have his time. I can advise the House that he is on his way from his office—not on a plane, as Annette King suggested, which was totally out of order during a point of order. He is on his way, and he is here now. I am sure that Mr Prebble will be quite happy to take his call—hard fought for that it has been—and finish the speech that he tried to give last night.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make it absolutely clear that I regard it as an outrage to suggest that I have gone on an aeroplane in order not to speak in this debate. I think that Annette King should think about that and withdraw and apologise.

Jill Pettis: It was me. I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I call the Hon Richard Prebble.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I rise to speak to the Green member’s bill, the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill, and to say that, like other members, the ACT party’s reaction to flexible employment is very much in favour. When I read the title of the bill I was sympathetic. However, when one reads the bill, one can see that it is completely different.

This bill sets out a bureaucratic procedure whereby somebody who has agreed to work for an employer, and has signed up and completed an employment agreement, can then write a letter saying: “I would like to work different hours.”, and the employer is required to agree. The employer is even required—as one sees if one reads the bill carefully—to employ someone else to do the work so that the person can have flexible employment hours. If the employer disagrees, the employee then has the right to go to the Employment Court. I just ask the Green Party members where they have been. Have they any idea of the expense and the red tape involved when an employer has to go off to the Employment Court just because someone has written such a letter?

When one reads the bill further, one discovers that the employee can, basically, do this every year. So every year he or she can write and say: “I’ve decided to change my hours—I’d like to work different hours.”, and can demand that the employer employ someone else. So, for example, although the employee was hired to make sure the shop was open at 8 o’clock, he or she can decide not to be there at 8 o’clock, and the employer would have to employ someone else at that hour. The employee might instead like to work from 11 until 3, which are nice, easy hours. The employee can then go to the Employment Court, which will have to look at the matter, and the Employment Court can fix the hours. I looked through the bill to see whether there was any clause that asked whether the employer could afford it and what the effect would be on the company—and members can see that the effect could be disastrous on many small businesses. There is no such provision.

I listened very carefully to the Green MP’s speech last night. She told us that we should do this basically because the Europeans do it. Again, one wonders where the Green MPs have been. We could have some debate in this House about whether the present high levels of employment are due to the changes made by Ruth Richardson and Roger Douglas, which I think is so, or whether the present Government can take the credit. But there is no doubt about one thing—the reason the British have a higher level of unemployment than us is that, even though they have the most flexible labour laws in Europe, they are much more inflexible than ours. If we were to look at the Europeans that the Green MPs were citing, we would see that they have, in some countries, up to 17 percent of the workforce who want to work, out of work. The Green MPs are asking why we cannot join them. They are saying: “Wouldn’t that be great.”, and that somehow, we are out of step with the rest of the world. We are, actually, because we have more of our people working.

From the ACT party’s point of view, the only thing the Green MP got right was the name of the bill. If we really want to have flexible working hours, we should have a freedom-to-contract bill. Any employer and any employee should be able to sit down freely, without any interruption from the State, and negotiate whatever hours, time, and conditions they want. If the Green Party really wants flexible employment, then that is what it ought to do. Indeed, we have Mr Tamihere’s word that the changes made by the Labour Government, with the enthusiastic support of the Greens, have actually put up the costs of employment. I will not repeat the words Mr Tamihere used when he described the changes the Government has made, because most of them are unparliamentary. These changes, which the Green Party wants to make, would be at the expense of employment, at the expense, actually, of flexible working hours, and at the expense of greater prosperity.

The Green Party does not appear to realise that the vast majority of firms in New Zealand—about 90 percent, I understand—actually employ five people or less. The Green Party is saying that the State should fix everybody’s hours of work—what time they would start and what time they would finish. Even the Communists did not go that far. This is an appalling proposal. It would add costs and it is anti-employer, and I think it is actually anti-worker, anti-women, and anti-New Zealand. It is totally contrary to our traditions, and the Green Party needs to have a rethink. I say to the member that the ACT party most certainly will not be supporting this bill.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) : I rise to give this contribution on behalf of my colleague Sue Bradford, who was prepared to give it last night, but cannot be here today. All of us in the Green Party are, of course, delighted that not only has Sue Kedgley’s member’s bill on flexible working hours been drawn from the ballot, but also that the Government has seen fit to support it to a select committee. That is wonderful news. I certainly hope that Labour will go all the way and help us make sure that the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill becomes law—if not in this Parliament, then at least early in the next one.

From both a worker’s and a parent’s perspective, it is critical that the parents of babies and young children are given backing in law to allow them the ability to work shorter hours if they are required to. All parents, and particularly mothers, who have gone back to work when their babies have just been born, or when their children are very young, know how hard it is to cope with the dictates of full-time hours and inflexible working days. I have experienced the stress and tension of working a regular 40-hour-a-week job to support my family with two really young ones in childcare, and two older ones at school, as well. At the time I was lucky enough to have an employer who allowed me to start very early and to have a shortened lunch break so that I could leave by 3. But it was an utterly exhausting business, and it would have been wonderful to have had the right to negotiate for shorter hours and/or more flexibility about when I actually worked.

Many mothers and fathers are in this situation today as a higher than ever proportion of parents go out to work—often for economic reasons above all else. With the Government’s current massive emphasis on paid work as a solution to the problems of single parenthood, it is just as well that it has seen fit to support this bill. If it had not, the irony of the contradiction would have stuck in the craw somewhat. Solo parents in employment face a particularly tough time in trying to balance work, childcare, after-school care, and all the work that still needs to happen once parents get home. If we are to keep advising and pushing people on to the domestic purposes benefit out into the employed workforce, the least we can do here in Parliament is to give them the right to request reduced, part-time, or flexible hours from their employers.

I would also note, in speaking in support of this bill, that there are particular jobs and professions that will particularly benefit from the bill’s application, once it is passed. For example, the Nurses Organisation has recently pointed out that it would help solve current nurse and midwife shortages if younger women in those professions were allowed to have more flexibility once they became parents, as difficulties with childcare arrangements are often cited by them as reasons for leaving the profession.

I am also pleased that my colleague Sue Kedgley has included a clause stipulating that parents of disabled children will be able to have the proposed new law apply until their child turns 18. This is very practical, given the realities of life for working parents of children with even moderate impairments, much less major ones.

In a society that is so focused on all of us getting out to work we must maximise the possibilities of balance between the requirements of employers and the real life needs of our children, our partners, and ourselves. Paid parental leave is one critical part of this equation, but so are measures such as a much higher minimum wage, increased support for breastfeeding in the workplace, and legislative encouragement for flexible working hours. While unions continue to do their best to improve conditions for their members in these respects, this will never be enough, at least not in the foreseeable future. With the impact of 1990s de-unionisation still with us, all too many employees still do not have a union to bargain for them and, even for those who do, having a law like this will help enormously in achieving particular improvements for workers who are also parents of young and/or disabled children.

I look forward to the day when we in New Zealand are mature enough to begin to match countries like some of those in Europe where employees have the legal right to request more flexibility in their working arrangements when they have young and/or disabled children. I hope this will happen before the end of 2005, and I wish my colleague’s bill speedy and successful progress through the House.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on this Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. If anything, the fiasco we have just seen in the House demonstrates clearly that we cannot run on laws alone. We have had a very clear example in the House—when we take things to the letter of the law without taking into consideration the viewpoints of all people affected, we will have a fiasco.

United Future has been criticised for not supporting this bill going to a select committee, because we are known as the family-friendly party. Let me assure those who are listening to this debate that this legislation is absolutely not family friendly. The scenario in this bill should relate to that of a normal working relationship, whereby anybody who is negotiating for a job can speak to the prospective employer and discuss the hours he or she wishes to work, as occurs already in many businesses throughout this country.

Nobody would disagree with the scenario in this legislation, but it has been brought about in such a legalistic manner. A poor old employer may have somebody come on to his or her payroll on the pretence of working, let us say, from midday until 3 p.m., then all of a sudden, after 6 months, the employee can knock on the employer’s door and demand that the working hours be negotiated. Sadly, many people do that, because they have no intention of working long term from 12 to 3. They get a foot in the door, they know that the poor old employer will have to be dragged through the court system and negotiate, and the employer ends up the loser.

If we are talking about time with families, as I have heard many speak about in this debate, I say that all the reforms that were designed to give us more time with families I have seen go through over a number of years have, in reality, given us far less time with families. We are starting to work in a 24/7 society, and I think that when we are in a situation whereby there is freedom of negotiation about employment by a willing employer and employee, it is always far better.

For a working family, United Future’s income-splitting policy would achieve far more for those who want to stay at home and look after their children, have more time with their family, or whatever. There is an interesting scenario whereby in many families the other partner is forced into taking a job. In today’s society that may well be the male, but it is often the female. When we sit down to work out how much better off with a second income those families are at the end of the day, we must consider that there are often transport costs to get to work, extra clothing costs involved in the job, and extra meal costs because of the job—that can be because one of the partners comes home and is just so worn out after the day that he or she chooses to have takeaways or something else. Those are always extra costs. There is also the cost of day-care facilities, and many of those other things. So when we work it through for a two-income working family, and consider the work-life balance, sometimes the few, miserable extra dollars they get at the end of the day make one wonder if it is really worth it.

I believe that although a lot of that legislation sounds fair in itself, we are actually channelling people into a lifestyle that they have not chosen. I think that a lot of our legislation has actually taken choice away from families who do not want both parents working and who really want one of them to stay at home to raise their own children. United Future’s income-splitting policy would do far more to achieve a good work-life balance, and far more to achieve the ability of one parent being able to go to their children’s sports matches, and many of those other things that I have heard about in this debate. So United Future has chosen not to support this bill, because in our opinion it is not family friendly.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) : I rise to support the first reading of this bill. The Labour Party and the Progressive Party will support its referral to the select committee.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) : I support the bill going through to the select committee.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : First of all I would like to thank some of the speakers in the debate, in particular Mark Gosche and Helen Duncan, who spoke yesterday in support of this bill. They said that when the bill reached the select committee, they would listen to the views of New Zealanders. I thank them for that.

I expected Labour to support this bill because it has made many commitments to being a family-friendly party. Only yesterday or the day before Labour released a family-friendly policy in respect of the State services, so it is only logical that Labour would support a bill that seeks to make life a little easier for parents with young children. I agree too with Helen Duncan that this bill should be part of a package of measures to make life easier for parents with young children, and the Government has introduced many measures, such as paid parental leave, childcare, increased subsidies, etc., which we strongly support and which will complement this particular bill.

I was surprised by Wayne Mapp’s suggestion that this bill was addressing a problem that does not exist. I wonder where Mr Mapp has been. There has been a long debate in the media in recent times about the extraordinary toll that trying to work full-time and juggle family responsibilities is taking on families today. Is he unaware of this debate that has been raging in the media? Has he not read the various reports that have been put out by, for example, the Council of Trade Unions, and another one here by Victoria University, and another one by the Department of Labour? All have put out reports. They have surveyed workers, and have found that one of the No 1 issues of concern is the overload; the long hours people are working, and the fact that they are under constant stress. This relentless pressure is having a debilitating effect on their families. They are able to spend less and less time with their families. It is corroding their relationships. They are missing out on key milestones in their children’s development. So Mr Mapp’s contention that this is not a problem in the workplace is quite bizarre, and I suspect it suggests how out of touch he and the National Party are with social problems in New Zealand. It is extraordinary too that a party that claims to be family-friendly would oppose a simple piece of legislation that tries to make it easier for parents with young families.

I utterly respect and accept that ACT would oppose this bill. After all, ACT members have an ideology of always putting the needs of employers ahead of the needs of employees, and they have never pretended to be family-friendly, but United Future members do and New Zealand First members do. It is quite extraordinary; they came up with the usual, tired old line that was used against paid parental leave and pay equity. They said they could not do that because it would pose such high costs to employers, and that it would go against women employees because employers would be worried that it would increase their costs. That is what they said about the paid parental leave bill and other bills, and it has not come about.

This is a very modest bill. It is based on successful UK legislation, which has not resulted in employers being taken to an employment tribunal. Nine out of 10 applications in the UK have been utterly successful. More than a million employees in England have successfully used this mechanism. I expect exactly the same thing to happen here. I expect it will be mutually satisfactory for the employer and the employee, and that employees will realise that when we have more flexible working hours they will have a more satisfied, motivated, and productive workforce. So I expect employers to get fully behind this bill, just as families and employees already have.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : I move, That the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee