Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill second reading speech

Ruth Dyson
Minister of Labour
5 September 2007

It gives me great pleasure to support this bill in its second reading, and I congratulate Sue Kedgley from the Green Party on taking the initiative, introducing the bill to the House and stimulating the debate at Select Committee. I also want to acknowledge and thank the other members of the Select Committee for their rigorous consideration of this issue.

It has been more than a year since the Committee first reported to Parliament with a recommendation that the Department of Labour undertake further research. In that time the Department has collected further information on workplace practices regarding flexible working hours, and consulted widely with industry, unions, and other stakeholders about how best to deliver flexible working practices in New Zealand.

The results of that work have been very interesting and show clearly the significance of this issue for business and unions. The consultation also illustrated how flexible work arrangements can benefit our communities, our economy and our environment.

Our government has taken the opportunity during the 14 months since the Committee first reported to Parliament on this bill, to engage with Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, to explore the issue of workplace flexibility in greater depth.

I would like to thank both organisations for their commitment to promoting and educating their respective constituencies about the benefits of workplace flexibility. I would also like to acknowledge the work of other representative groups and organisations that have worked to raise the profile of this important issue.

New Zealanders want and need work-life balance and flexible working arrangements are a key part of that. Work-life balance is not just about delivering benefits to employees – it’s also about our overall quality of life and our living standards.

And work-life balance is not just good for employees, it's about quality flexible work being good for employers because if they have the best workplace they will be able to attract and retain staff. That is the biggest challenge for New Zealand employers.
Flexible, responsive workplaces can deliver both productivity benefits and ease our skill shortages. They can help New Zealand compete globally for skilled workers and enable more New Zealanders who want to work, to participate in the labour market.

The results of two surveys of employees and employers about work-life balance identified that flexible working arrangements, including flexible start and finish times, was consistently ranked among the most helpful initiatives for people to balance work with other things in their lives.

The surveys suggest that a majority of employers do not see major barriers to improving flexibility. And in support of that, employees understand the business imperatives facing their organisations. In fact, many employers already offer their staff flexible working arrangements. But many do not.

Almost all respondents agreed that quality flexible work was an important issue. 84% of respondents supported legislating for the right to request flexible working arrangements. Many respondents support legislation on the basis that it will legitimise the issue and provide a clear and transparent process for requesting flexible working arrangements that will help both employees and employers.

Notably, a third of respondents feel that a combination of approaches will work best. That is why it is important that the work of my Department, the Government’s social partners and others to provide information and resources to employees and employers continues.

This bill provides certain groups of employees with the right to request flexible working arrangements, that is a change to their hours of work, times or days of work, or place of work. The bill requires employers to consider the request and provides grounds on which they can refuse a request.

This bill also provides a process for making and considering requests, including a requirement that an employee making a request must explain what changes may be required to the employer’s arrangements. This aspect of the bill supports what we have heard through the recent consultation – that to be successful, flexible work arrangements need to suit the needs of all parties – the individual concerned, their colleagues and the workplace.

This bill is based on similar UK legislation. The legislation has been very successful there. A recent UK study of work-life balance found that nearly 80 percent of requests for flexible working arrangements have been accepted, the majority of which were accepted in whole and a smaller number were accepted through compromise.

Studies into the effect of the UK legislation on employers have also been positive. One such study found that 76 percent of businesses found the impact of the legislation to be negligible and 90 percent reported no significant problems complying with the new requirements.

The majority of employers also believe that the legislation has had a positive effect of employee attitudes and morale.

Of particular interest is the extent to which the legislation has helped change workplace culture. The vast majority of UK employers now consider requests from employees not covered by the legislation. This finding shows how legislation can act as a catalyst for positive change beyond the groups immediately affected.

New Zealand workplaces will, I hope, be just as responsive to the need for flexibility and work-life balance. Some workplaces in our country already have some form of flexibility in place and others are starting to move towards flexible arrangements. This bill supports this increasing trend in New Zealand workplaces.

There are many issues to be considered in legislation like this. These include whether workers would have the right to revert to their original hours once their need for flexible hours was considered.

The Committee has addressed these concerns by amending the bill to require that a request must state whether the arrangements are permanent or temporary and, if temporary, how long the arrangement will 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 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, such as those that have the care and responsibility of dependent family members, such as elderly parents, was also a concern during earlier debates on this bill.

I am pleased to note that this concern has largely been removed with the amendment by the Committee to extend the provisions of the bill to include workers with dependent relatives.

There is also the issue of making this bill work in practice so that all workers are treated fairly and it would not operate on a “first in, first served” basis. Consideration needs to be given to this because in some workplaces, workers are very concerned at maintaining their rights to fairness in shift and hours allocation.
There is also an ongoing concern about the highly casualised industries. Their struggle is not for flexible hours but for secure hours and decent work.

The select committee did indeed stimulate a healthy and insightful debate, but there is more work to be done, and I welcome that. We want to be sure we can successfully implement the type of flexible work that the bill’s author envisages.

I want to again thank the members of the committee for their considered deliberations on this bill.

I’d like to particularly acknowledge the positive outcome of the committee’s earlier recommendation that additional research and consultation be carried out before decisions were made on progressing this bill.

That work, and the very useful submissions received from business, unions and other interested parties, have helped to 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 the 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 these proposed changes.

Again I thank Sue Kedgley for bringing this bill forward and wish the next stages of this bill speedy progress.

ENDS