LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : This Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill before the House tonight is about fairness and about having laws that reflect the realities of contemporary life. Before Parliament passed the 1990 Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act, the Department of Labour operated its own Shop Trading Hours Commission, which would hear and grant dispensations. This body was extinguished and there is now no avenue under current legislation for retailers to apply for exemptions. So those who received exemptions prior to 1990 have done very well, but, of course, this has created much friction for those who now wish to trade on Easter Sunday. Visitor destinations like Queenstown and Taupō can trade on Easter Sunday, but Rotorua, Mount Maunganui, and Wanganui cannot. I recall a couple of years ago a cruise liner coming into Mount Maunganui. The shops in Mount Maunganui were not open, and the shops in Tauranga were not open, so buses were put on to take visitors from the ships down to Taupō. The bus even had to pass Rotorua to get there.

In my opening statement I said that this bill is about fairness. These examples demonstrate how stupid the current law is. There has been a long history of trading restrictions in New Zealand. The 1990 Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act provided some compromise, and now we have the opportunity to extend those provisions. Currently there are two groups of shops permitted to open on restricted days. These are special types of shops and are in particular areas. Stores such as dairies and service stations selling food, drink, household items, personal items, and automotive fuel, lubricants, parts, and accessories are able to open. Shops selling mainly souvenirs, duty-free goods, and ready-to-eat food, bookstalls at public passenger transport terminals, pharmacies, and shops of genuine exhibitions and shows—and, following an amendment to the Act in 2001, garden centres—may open on Easter Sunday.

A second group of shops in some areas may open because the Act froze some area exemption orders that had been granted under the Shop Trading Act of 1977. Those exemptions were decided by a commission based on the application and a hearing process. The commission had to be satisfied that the exemption was in the best interests of the public generally, based on the following factors: public demand, effect on retail prices, effect on family and social patterns in the area, the nature of the area, the desirability of providing service to the public at all reasonable times in tourist and holiday resort areas, stability and economic planning in a wider area, the interests of other shop occupiers, minimising trading on Sundays, and the 40-hour week principle. If a shop does not clearly fit into one of the exempting categories it is an offence to open and trade during restricted times, and the occupier may be liable to a fine up to $1,000.

The retailers appear to consider fines as a cost of doing business, and minimal compared with the costs associated with having to close. The maximum fine level is also minimal in comparison with the resource expenditure of the Department of Labour to visit, investigate, and prosecute such breaches. Recent decisions by the court also reduce the effectiveness of the penalty regime. To date, the department has prosecuted 70 shops—[Interruption] Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is quite right. Members cannot stand and speak. If they want conversation they should go out into the corridors. I apologise, Mr Tisch.

LINDSAY TISCH: Recent decisions of the court also reduce the effectiveness of the penalties regime. To date, the department has prosecuted 70 shop owners for opening over the 2006 Easter period. Those prosecutions resulted in 14 shop owners being convicted and discharged without fines, 54 shop owners being convicted and fined, and two shop owners being convicted and warned. It is interesting to note that there are a number of exemptions already for Easter Sunday: Parnell Road in Auckland; the Arts Centre of Christchurch; the Carnegie Centre in Dunedin, The Marketplace and Collins Road in Hamilton, and the Napier market. Nelson can trade on Christmas Day, which is interesting, and also Good Friday when Founders Park is open.

We debated my colleague Jacqui Dean’s bill the other day that said we could not have Good Friday trading, yet there are places where there are exemptions to trade on Good Friday and on Christmas Day. Paihia shops can trade on Easter Friday and Easter Sunday. Picton, in the Mariners Mall, also has Friday and Sunday trading if a cruise ship is in the port, and Queenstown has Easter Friday. Richmond Court in Thames, where full-time artists and craftspeople sell their own goods at stalls, can open on Christmas Day, and Wānaka can open on Easter Sunday. When we look at the point I made, this bill is about fairness and equity because it takes out some of the distortions in how the exemptions currently operate.

The principal changes proposed by Steve Chadwick’s bill are that it enables territorial authorities to decide whether retail shops in the districts may open on Easter Sunday after consulting with their communities—and that is the point she made earlier on—using the special consultative process provided in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. It provides that in districts that permit Easter Sunday trading, employment agreements entered into before the bill is passed cannot be interpreted as requiring shop employees to work on Easter Sunday unless the parties to the agreements so agree. I think that is a significant protection for those who have opposed the opening on Easter Sunday. That protection is there under current employment law so they are not required to work if they do not wish.

Of the 54 submissions that came in on this bill—and while I was not on the Commerce Committee, I have certainly analysed these—32 were in support and 22 were opposed. Most of the submissions, of course, as one would expect, came from the business community and those involved in tourism. Tourism is New Zealand’s No. 1 export earner so it is important that tourism operators are able to serve the clients who come in. In my own area of the Waikato there was a very good submission from the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. It represents over 250 businesses in central Waikato and its submission stated: “The town and its environs Lake Karapiro, and soon the highly visitor attractive Maungatautari wildlife reserve, lie geographically situated in a part of an area known for its natural beauty. This results in the area becoming an attraction to visitors both from within New Zealand and from overseas.” The point that the submission made here was that Easter Sunday trading was going to be important for the businesses in being able to cater for those needs of those visitors who came into the region.

Many will oppose this, but whether one opens on Easter Sunday will be a matter for shop owners to decide. The protection that employees have in not being required to work, I think, is significant, and with those words I will be supporting the passing of this bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou te Whare. I raise this point of order because it is about an issue that is likely to come up in other speeches this evening. With no disrespect to Mr Tisch’skōrero—I did not interrupt him because he was into his flow—I am suggesting that, in this particular bill, Māori names are likely to be a part of the discussion that will take place tonight. I noted that Mr Tisch, in his speech, pronounced eight to 10 Māori names. For the purpose of us, as a House, taking a lead in respect of the pronunciation of Māori words, I seek leave of the House to simply give a lead on the correct pronunciation of five place names of this country in the Māori language. That will assist all members of the House as we debate this particular bill in the knowledge that those names are likely to come up again during the course of this debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Well, the member can seek leave for anything he wants; obviously that is a matter for the House’s decision. I would just say that we have had a discussion on this matter previously. I will put that leave. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : Could I just say that we know where Rotorua is and we know where Taupō is. We have a translator who is being paid to sit up there to tell us what the correct pronunciation is, and if he is not there to do that then we are not usefully using the taxpayers’ money. We did not object to that leave with any sense of malice, but to make the point that if we are going to employ someone here to give the correct pronunciation, and he is meant to be a trusted officer of Parliament without any political, regional, or iwi—and there can be variations—bias, then maybe we should trust him. That is my point. I just want to say, in respect of this bill—

Te Ururoa Flavell: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My speech is not a point of order, I am speaking. Could I just say that the bill before the House, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, is a bill that bears a remarkable similarity to a bill put up by New Zealand First where we said that the deciding factor should be what the local government thinks, not what Parliament thinks. Local government—with its retail outlets, its people, and its ratepayers—should decide what is appropriate for them because they can best determine what is the best form of law on the question of retail outlets being opened on any given day in New Zealand where their region or their town is concerned.

I say to the promoter of this bill that we support the legislation, and thank heavens we have finally got around to promoting common sense. It takes a long time, sometimes, in Parliament; our bill has been on the ballot paper for 13 years, and that is a fact—13 long years. During that time Max Bradford from the National Party totally screwed this issue up. Those members over there have not been around here long enough to remember who Max Bradford is, but the National Party utterly screwed this issue up. If that was not bad enough, the ACT party took the extreme view that shops and retail outlets should be open 24/7, 365 days a year.

Hon Member: That was Rodney.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That was Rodney. As a consequence, down went the legislation, which sought to give places like Tauranga and Rotorua the same right that those privileged townships of Taupō and Queenstown have had to open their shops. Really, the law has made no sense whatsoever.

Although I say that, I do support some of the safeguards that the member Steve Chadwick has in her legislation. By that I mean that in places like France there is no shopping on Sundays. France is a country where the visiting population of tourists—in Paris in particular—would be as high as anywhere in the world. Can they go shopping in that country? No. Some of the southern states in the United States have no Sunday shopping at all; neither is any liquor sold.

Some of the proponents of the type of view held by Rodney Hide have argued that shopping restrictions have been a terrible impediment to retail sales in this country. Well, there are some things more important than that and they are family life and community life. These cannot occur unless people have the time to make their contribution. It is a fact that some of the decay in our society today is best explained by the way we have allowed so much of New Zealand’s former family and community life to be attacked in the name of the Mammon of the golden dollar and commercialism—it has not advanced this country, at all.

But there is, and should be, the right for towns to decide, in concert with their retailers, their people, and their ratepayers, whether they want Easter Sunday shopping, and what have you. I just make that point, in case anyone should get the view that this is not something we have supported for a long, long time—with safeguards, as well. I thank my colleague Peter Brown for giving me a chance to speak for 5 minutes. I thought we should make that point. As someone who has been here a little while, I saw the way this issue has been screwed up time and time again by intemperate, extremist members of Parliament. Thank you very much.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thank the Rt Hon Winston Peters for giving me a lead on the discussion, and I seek clarification around the issue I raised earlier. I did not want to interrupt the member again, but as I understand it, the role of the interpreters in this House is to translate-cum-interpret discussions in te reo Māori. Their role is not to give pronunciation lessons. Thus, the reason I stood was simply to help members of the House; it was not to be disrespectful to anyone in particular.

I seek the leave of the House simply to recognise that the bill is an important bill—it is an important discussion—and I make a stand by seeking leave to give the correct pronunciation for five names only. In light of that, which is a little bit different from the explanation provided by Mr Peters, I seek leave again that the question be put—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I just want to check that the member has finished his point of order.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I made the point that no disrespect is intended. It is just to clarify points. I also want to make sure that the integrity of our translators is not put aside, in the sense that I am fairly sure that their position is simply to provide translations, not pronunciation lessons.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : I just say to my colleague that that was a very generous offer he made, but there are variations in pronunciation, and, given that the biggest population of Māori in this country comes from Ngāpuhi, it should be my colleague Dover Samuels who is asked to give that interpretation. Those are the problems we have. But I really have nothing against my colleague from the Māori Party giving us, as he said, a lesson, which he also described as not being the job of the translators.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is correct. It is not the job of the translator. But leave is sought for what the member asked for. He has a right to put that again. Is there any objection? There is.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I can only endorse what my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, said. We have been trying to pursue this sort of legislation for many a year, and when a bill came out in Winston’s name a few years ago we tried very hard to get the House to adopt it. There are a number of differences between Winston’s bill and this bill. One, as I recall it, is that the New Zealand First bill applied to only Tauranga and Rotorua, whilst this bill will apply nationwide.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ours was nationwide.

PETER BROWN: I stand corrected: ours applied nationwide. But there is another difference, which is that this bill contains some protection for people who might be required to work on Easter Sunday. I have not advised my leader of this, but recently I met with some union officials who outlined that concern, in some detail. New Zealand First is, of course, accepting this legislation in the genuine sense of the conscience vote. Although we are all voting in favour of the bill, we recognise there is a legitimate concern for people who may be required to work on that day.

So when the bill reaches the Committee stage, a Supplementary Order Paper in my name will propose an amendment to make it mandatory for a review, after 2 years, of the situation of workers. In other words, if workers are taken unfair advantage of within the 2-year period—assuming this bill is passed, of course—then the Department of Labour will conduct a review. The department will then report to the Minister, and the Minister will make the findings known to the House. I am hopeful that those people who support this bill will support that amendment. I will be writing to MPs advising them of the Supplementary Order Paper. I apologise that I have not done it as yet; we have only just worked on it. But it is an important consideration. The folk I met with—and I have discussed this with some of my colleagues—have, to my mind, got a major issue of concern. So it is only reasonable that we put in a review process—at least, that is as I see it.

The other important aspect to this bill, which makes it quite different from the earlier bill that was rejected, is that it excludes Good Friday. I understand that the last bill was modified to exclude Good Friday except for certain events or what have you. But this bill makes Good Friday totally exempt as a shopping day. We in New Zealand First view that as an important factor. Good Friday has some very special meanings attached to it, particularly for the Christian community of this country. I am told from the census report that over 50 percent of people in this country still claim to be Christian—and good on them.

One of the major concerns we have is that the current law is uneven, and we know that at times of extended holidays, cruise ships quite often come into places like Mount Maunganui and Tauranga Harbour. The passengers come off the ships and look for somewhere to go shopping. Bus and taxi operators take advantage of the situation by advertising that the shops are open in Taupō, and the operators take them all there. So the passengers come off cruise ships, get in buses and taxis, pass through Tauranga and Rotorua, and go on to Taupō. If that makes sense to anybody in this House, then I ask them, please, to explain it, because I do not understand it. There we have two major holiday resorts, yet tour buses take passengers from cruise liners and drive them all the way through to Taupō. Taupō is, of course—

Te Ururoa Flavell: Taupō.

PETER BROWN: Have I not pronounced that correctly? I do apologise to my colleague; I do not mean to be disrespectful. I guess that is the “Pommy-ness” coming out in me. How I pronounce the word is a common way of doing so—but I am getting better.

It does irritate the community in Tauranga and Rotorua, and it is only right and fair that we get standard legislation that goes across the country. This bill does that.

Jacqui Dean: No. It doesn’t.

PETER BROWN: The member says “No.”? I bet the member votes for it.

It is only right and proper that we try to standardise the legislation, in so much as local councils will determine whether shops are open. We think that is fair.

I close by reminding the House that there will be a Supplementary Order Paper in my name to ask for a review of the worker protection clauses. I trust that members will give that serious consideration, and give it some support at the Committee stage.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : I rise to speak to the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill in the name of Steve Chadwick. I am very pleased to support this bill. I will start by answering Peter Brown’s contention that this bill will bring a standardisation of the Easter trading legislation. Alas it will not, and that is because of the mechanism that it proposes to use, which is to devolve the decision-making process down to local government. My one fear with regard to this bill is that we will end up with an expensive, lengthy, contentious debate that will split communities. I know that small communities will be split over this measure—as this House has been—and we will get different decisions in different areas. But, having said that, I still support the bill because I believe that although the issue of Easter trading is extremely contentious, we do need to make progress on it.

I am acutely aware that here we have another member attempting—in a long line of members of Parliament who have attempted—to seek reform of the legislation around Easter trading, and to bring some sense into the situation whereby retailers are prosecuted every year for opening their doors on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. The arguments have not changed much, either—whether it is about a freedom to trade, a choice of when to open the doors for business, or the bringing of employment and economic benefits, versus the concerns about the acknowledgment of a religious festival, the preservation of family life, or the protection of workers. Each argument for or against the liberalisation of Easter trading has its merits, and each argument needs to be taken into account when making legislation. But we do have a persistent call for liberalisation, and we have to deal with that.

I support this bill because the Wānaka Chamber of Commerce has asked me to help it. Steve Chadwick is representing the interests of Rotorua. Many chambers of commerce and retailers associations are keen to see this matter settled, so that they can get on with business without the annoyance of the annual Easter trading round of prosecutions.

I acknowledge the work put in by all members of the Commerce Committee when considering both bills, the Dean bill and the Chadwick bill, on Easter trading. It was acknowledged by us that notwithstanding all the many objections, the retail sector and many members of society are looking to us for leadership and for a solution to the anomalous situation we have now in the Easter trading legislation. I also acknowledge the large number of submitters who took the time to write and to speak to their submissions. I thank them for the high-quality and well-reasoned suggestions for a way forward.

I received a letter 2 days ago signed by 21 people who wanted me to know their feelings on the Easter trading legislation. I acknowledge that for some people, Easter trading is incompatible with the celebration of their faith. I acknowledge that some people feel that working over Easter cuts into family life. I argue that no one is forced to go shopping, and no one is forced to work, over Easter. Most letters to me have been reasonable, but some have not. I have had two personally abusive letters from people who purport to be men of God. To me, that is not acceptable. I do not think this issue is important enough for that to be done.

Several unions are concerned about the issue of worker protection. Amendments to this bill and to the Dean bill at the Commerce Committee have resulted in several changes. I repeat that no one can be forced to work over Easter. There can be no penalty for declining or refusing to work. Retail workers have 11 statutory holidays and 4 weeks’ annual leave. To me it is nonsense to contend that having to work over Easter will ruin family life. I also note that many retail workers are young and work part-time. They value the extra hours work and the opportunity to earn extra money. I asked many retailers in Wānaka about that during the submission process, and they told me that they have no trouble in finding people to work over Easter.

A number of historical privileges add to the anomalies and inherent unfairness of the shop trading hours legislation as it stands. For example, Picton and Queenstown have exemptions carried over from the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990. Businesses in both those towns can trade on Good Friday from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m., with no other restrictions. How even-handed is that? Those historical privileges exist for shops in Picton on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, in Queenstown on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, and in Taupō for Easter Sunday only, but they do not exist for other similar tourist areas such as Rotorua or Wānaka. In other words, it is a legislative dog’s breakfast and an uneven playing field. We already have Good Friday and Easter Sunday trading, but just not on a fair basis.

I want to turn to some changes I propose to this bill. I want to signal a change to the bill that I will introduce as a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage, should the bill pass this second reading. I propose that the legislation enable a territorial authority to decide whether shops in its district may remain open on Good Friday if a significant event is to occur in the district on that day. I define a significant event as one attended by a significant number of people, including people from outside the district—that is the key to it—and one that brings economic benefit to the district. I believe that the amendment I plan to introduce is a practical, pragmatic solution, meaning that only those districts like Wānaka, where the Warbirds over Wānaka event is held every second year, would be interested in applying for an exemption to trade on Good Friday. If Rotorua or Tauranga, for example, were planning a major event for the Easter weekend, and if the chamber of commerce or a retail group supported it, that body could apply to the city council for an exemption to allow trading on Good Friday. That exemption would affect that district only on that day in that year. Wānaka would apply for an exemption only every second year, for the year that Warbirds over Wānaka is held.

It became obvious during the hearing of submissions on Easter trading that there was broad support for the liberalisation of trading on Easter Sunday. But there was not the same level of support for trading on Good Friday, although a number of submitters did indicate support for it. Some solution needs to be found, if we as a Parliament want to be seen as credible. There was a strong call from many submitters and members of the public for a general exemption for Easter Sunday trading. By far the greatest number of submitters who supported both bills supported a New Zealand - wide exemption. That is why a general exemption by way of a schedule naming each territorial authority is the most efficient measure to adopt.

To devolve the decision making to the territorial authority will mean, as I started to say at the beginning of my speech, different rules for each district. That, I think, is the flaw in the Chadwick bill. But I support this bill because I believe we now have the opportunity in Parliament to get this matter right. I urge members of the House to support the bill.

MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I rise to take a call on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. The first thing I wish to do is to pay tribute to my colleague Steve Chadwick. This bill started life as a local bill introduced by Steve Chadwick, who was bringing the concerns of her local community to Parliament. It was an effort on behalf of the local authority and the retailers in Rotorua that they be allowed to trade on Easter Sunday as those in other parts of the country were, particularly those in areas with a tourist focus.

I commend Steve for her efforts in getting this bill into the House and for succeeding in bringing it forward on behalf of Rotorua; that is what she has been doing. Along the way the bill has morphed into a member’s bill. Such bills were formerly known as private member’s bills but are now known as member’s bills. It needs to be recognised that the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill started life as a local bill and that Steve Chadwick was representing her community in bringing it forward.

I want to pick up a couple of points from the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean. First of all, I recognise that in large measure—and this refers also to the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ contribution earlier—the law surrounding retailing on public holidays or over the Easter break is a dog’s breakfast. I wish that this bill, as proposed by my colleague, could fix it. I suspect that it will not and that it will contribute to another layer of complexity.

I want to say one thing: I also—like Peter Brown, who spoke before me—wish to promote at the appropriate time in the Committee stage an amendment in a Supplementary Order Paper that will do something that was discussed but not passed by the Commerce Committee. I would like to see those workers who are covered by the operation of this bill—that is, those who agree to work on Easter Sunday—for the purposes of employment terms and conditions, treated as if Easter Sunday were a public holiday. Easter Sunday is not a public holiday. The public labour under the misapprehension that Easter Sunday is a public holiday; in fact, it is not. It is not one of the nine or 11 public holidays we get.

In the Supplementary Order Paper that I wish to promote, Easter Sunday would be treated as if it were a public holiday for those retail workers and for those who provide provisions—in other words, those who distribute goods to those retail outlets that open on Easter Sunday. The legislation would also cover distribution workers in that respect. This means that by treating Easter Sunday as if it were a public holiday, all of those employees would be entitled to time and a half plus a day in lieu, in accordance with the Holidays Act 2003. That would then test whether retailers really thought it was worth their while to open on Easter Sunday.

We had numerous representations at the Commerce Committee from retailers that it would be worth their while to open on Easter Sunday. In fact, it was imperative that they open and be able to compete with other shops down the road—quite literally in one case. Not far from the area that Jacqui Dean spoke about a moment ago, one retailer a little way out of Cromwell was not allowed to open on Easter Sunday, and another one a bit further down the road was allowed to open, because of the rules as they stand at the moment. The Supplementary Order Paper would really test whether retailers were serious about the gains that are to be made for them in being open on Easter Sunday.

I want to make one further comment: to say that workers will have a choice is true in letter but not in fact. Frequently, these people are working in very small workplaces, they work in very close proximity to their employer, and they work with teams whom they feel they would let down if they were not to work and not to take their rostered day on because they wanted to exercise their right not to work on Easter Sunday. Exercising that right is much easier said than done—that is something we cannot lose sight of. I want my Supplementary Order Paper to give workers additional protection and to give entitlements to people in this sector that they would not otherwise get. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I share my time.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : I thank Maryan Street for agreeing to split her 10 minutes. I also want to pay my respects to the member for Rotorua, Steve Chadwick, who I think is a wonderful, inspiring, and fantastic member for that area. She is a really good member but, with due respect, on this issue she and I agree to differ—a very rare event—in the spirit of great democracy that we have.

I also want to say simply that I strongly oppose the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. I believe that it is the thin edge of the wedge. I briefly, but very importantly, acknowledge—notwithstanding the last census, which acknowledged we still have a very significant proportion of people in our country who adhere to a Christian viewpoint and have a Christian faith—that there are but 3 major days when there is no shop trading. Those days are Good Friday, Christmas Day, and Easter Sunday. For that reason, and that reason alone, I oppose this bill. Out of 365 days a year, I do not think it is a big ask, frankly, to acknowledge those days. I believe that it will also be the thin end of the wedge because Easter Sunday will go, then it will be Good Friday, then it will be Christmas Day, and then it will be Anzac Day morning.

I was inspired by a letter addressed to our senior Government whip, Tim Barnett, from an official of the National Distribution Union, which does a great job protecting workers in a whole range of industries. I want to commit this letter to Hansard—if that has not already been done—because it sums up this debate from my point of view as the Labour member of Parliament representing the Hamilton West electorate. The letter states: “I am a wife, mother, and grandmother. I am also a worker at a shop floor, in this case at a major building store retailer in New Zealand.” I will not mention the company or the locality because I want to make double sure that she is not victimised by that major national company.

Jacqui Dean: Ha, ha!

MARTIN GALLAGHER: The member may laugh all she might over there, but this is a real issue for ordinary workers who can be victimised. “I am concerned about this store trading on Easter Sunday as are all workers for this chain throughout New Zealand. At Easter this year I refused to work the Sunday and spent time with my whānau instead for cultural and spiritual reasons. Other workers felt compelled to work for the following reasons: (1) Pressure by employers to work as a team. (2) The effect of upcoming appraisals and how it could maintain their current positions; that is, some cohorts were telling their workers that they need to be reliable to improve their conditions and positions. (3) Because of the low wages, workers felt compelled to work knowing that they would be paid time and a half. I ask you on behalf of all workers and as a grandmother to protect what little time we have per year by banning trade for this particular company on Easter Sunday. As an elected delegate I confidently speak on behalf of all the workers in my particular retail chain under management in saying that we fully support the bill to ban trading on Easter Sunday. We look to you and all our Government leaders to protect retail workers from the kind of abuse of power that can happen in corporate-owned companies such as this one in regard to trading on public holidays.”

Yes, we in this Parliament have leverage. We have negotiating skills. Many of the people who put us into this Parliament do not have those negotiating skills. I strongly and passionately believe that this bill is but a thin end of the wedge to further denude working conditions for workers in this country. We have 365 days in a year. Is it too much to ask for but 3½ of those days to be protected? In this country of ours, that is all we have left now. If members go, as was mentioned, to other countries such as parts of the United States of America and Europe—and I was in Germany the other year—they will see how fascinating it is that Germany, a powerful, successful economy, has far more restrictive shop trading hours than we do in New Zealand.

I apologise if the content of my speech appears to be somewhat emotional; it is not intended in that way, but I believe we should give thought to ordinary people in this country who do not have leverage. When those people are told they have to work on Easter Sunday, they will do so.

Finally, we talk about work-life balance. That means that for at least 3½ days out of 365—that is 1 percent—we might have a little bit of work-life balance in terms of at least guaranteeing that a section of our population can enjoy that time with their family and friends. We believe in family values. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : One down, one to go. Now that the bill in the name of Jacqui Dean has been defeated, we can concentrate on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, but that is small consolation. The Green Party is opposed to this bill, and will be voting against it, as well. Some may say that the Steve Chadwick bill is the lesser of two evils. I can understand why Steve Chadwick, as a diligent local MP, may have come under some pressure to put up such a bill. This is not the first time we have had a “We Want To Shop Until We Drop In Rotorua Bill”. However, this bill is also misconceived, and we now have the opportunity to reject both evils. I therefore urge the House to vote down this bill, as well.

During the past couple of months, I have noticed a strengthening of opposition to both the Steve Chadwick bill and the defeated Jacqui Dean bill. The Green Party has received delegations, emails, letters, and petitions that have all been opposed to any attempt to liberalise Easter Sunday trading.

I note that this bill has had its provisions for the protection of workers strengthened in line with the report of the Shop Trading Hours Working Group that was released in June 2003. It is claimed that the amendments to the bill will uphold the right of a worker to refuse to work each time he or she is asked to work on an Easter Friday or Easter Sunday. But the bill does not deal with the consequences of more shopworkers working on another day of the Easter break.

This means that more distribution workers will be required to work, more distribution centres will be open, more truck drivers will be on the road, and more security and cleaners will be needed. Perhaps more public transport workers will also be required. Those workers have no protection under this bill. And do we really believe that these worker protection clauses will protect workers in the real world of retail trading?

Like the previous speaker, Mr Martin Gallagher, I received that letter from a Bunnings Warehouse worker who refused to work when Bunnings again opened illegally this past Easter. That company publicly stated that it was not forcing staff to work. I agree with the worker who wrote the letter that the best defence of workers’ rights is the defeat of this bill. Before I get a call from Bunnings management with a complaint that I am singling that company out, let me say that the same comments can be made about all the stores that opened illegally on the current protected Easter days and that wish to have this legalised and to be able to open at all times on all days.

We could take, for example, the attitude of Mitre 10 in Pētone, which also decided to deliberately flout the law by opening on Easter Sunday this year. “What is a $1,000 fine when our turnover can surpass that amount in 2 minutes of trading?”, one Mitre 10 employee told one of my staff who was shopping on the Saturday and who queried why the company was opening illegally on the following day. My staff member was told that no one there wanted to work on Easter Sunday. Those workers were not paid like it was a public holiday—unlike at Bunnings. They did not get any time in lieu, either. They all just wanted to be with their friends and their families, and not to be at work, at all.

For this House to try to address these issues with the legislation before it is a bit like rearranging the display of moa at Te Papa: it will never bring those precious things back. We have already lost too many things that are precious to us as New Zealanders. I do not want to add Easter Sunday to that list—or Good Friday, or Anzac Day, or Christmas Day. The same logic of consumer freedom, used to liberalise trading on Easter Sunday, will inevitably return to this House next year, pushing for ever more opportunities to sell us something.

So who is supporting this bill? I have received approximately one letter of support for this bill in the last couple of weeks, and that has been from the Retailers Association. I know that many of the big chains support the bill—we have been told that Rotorua businesses support the bill—but there is no evidence of any groundswell of support at all from anywhere in New Zealand.

So who opposes the bill? Retail workers oppose the bill. The retail workers union the National Distribution Union opposes the bill, and its national and retail secretaries Laila Harré and Maxine Gay have been running a tireless campaign against it. The Council of Trade Unions opposes the bill. Churches and Christian groups oppose the bill. Unlike my section 59 bill, which divided the Christian community, there seems to be universal church opposition to the Steve Chadwick bill. I have not heard one church, Christian group, or faith group that is in support of this bill.

Now a number of councils are also coming out against it. Over the last 2 days Auckland MPs like myself would have received two letters from a large number of Auckland and Waitakere councillors, plus the Mayor of Waitakere, Bob Harvey, who all strongly oppose the bill. They oppose it for two reasons. First, they oppose it because they support the holidays for retail workers and families at Easter time. Secondly, they oppose it because they do not want the debate around shop trading hours to be imposed on local authorities. I am sure that if two of the biggest councils in the country feel this way, so will most other councils.

This brings us to those who are in the middle—those who are still wavering on the issue. I was somewhat bemused to read the speech of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to the Rotorua Chamber of Commerce yesterday morning. The timing of the speech was interesting in itself, but so were the comments of the Minister that Steve Chadwick, “having been burnt once before, has worked with me to produce a fall-back position should her Bill fail.” We have to wait until the end of the speech to discover what this “fall-back” position is, and we are told: “Cabinet has therefore instructed the Department of Labour and Ministry of Justice to undertake a review of how the Shop Trading Hours Act, the Sale of Liquor Act, and the Holidays Act operate over Easter weekend and report back options for resolving the discrepancies.”

The Green Party was unaware of this review. The Social Services Committee does not seem to have been aware of this review. No mention of this review has been made in the debate on either of the Easter trading bills. My inquiries today have indicated that this is not actually a new review but part of the Government’s ongoing Quality Regulation Review. I think the honourable member may have taken some liberties in her description of the review, and played those up to the audience yesterday. However, the member may have helped other members wavering on the issue to vote against the bill, on the basis that a review is currently taking place on these same issues, the outcome of which—if further legislation is required—will need to come back to this House. So I strongly urge any waverers here tonight to vote against the bill on that basis and to wait for the outcome of that review.

In the time I have left I will touch briefly on the issue of freedom. Many of the advocates of Easter Day trading say that this is simply an issue of freedom—freedom of choice, and freedom to choose how to spend one’s time on Easter Sunday, in particular. A vote supporting this legislation offers New Zealanders and our tourists one more choice of things to do on the last remaining consumer-free Sunday. People are free to attend church, people are free to gather as families, and people are free to shop. However, the freedom of those having to work in retail outlets across the country on this day is neatly overlooked by the advocates of the argument for freedom.

The rhetoric of freedom has become so entrenched in our society since the neo-liberal revolution that took place in the 1980s that we barely ever stop to consider what freedom corporations and their corporate-friendly politicians are actually trying to sell us. Michael Novak describes freedom in a free-market economy as an “empty shrine” or “wasteland” where common goals used to stand.

Freedom in a neo-liberal world is simply the right to choose either to shop or not to shop, to buy either widget A or widget B, depending on personal preference. Where personal wants come from does not matter; all that matters is that individuals can pursue their wants without the interference of others, especially from the State. Freedom is entirely personal, individualised, and without any higher claim, value, or common goal. If we give an alcoholic plenty of money in a liquor store that is open all hours, then we have an example of perfect freedom in a market-driven world.

The proponents of this bill are arguing that the nature of the good life is a greater freedom of choice. But this is a freedom defined in a vacuum—a wasteland—if one believes we should live in an ethical world. How many people seriously consider shopping to be the centre of virtue and of a good life? No; at the centre of virtue is whānau and family—those things that the Bunnings worker mentioned in her letter, which Martin Gallagher quoted from—the right relationship with one another, and our natural world. We should have time to play, time to reflect, time to worship, time for meaningful work, but also time for a well-deserved rest. Let us not throw this away.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) :Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa i te Whare. Yesterday I met a woman who described herself as a wife, mother, and grandmother from Whangarei. I suspect that she may well have been the same lady who provided letters to other parties. She is a worker on the shop floor of the local Warehouse. We were pleased to have a discussion with her. She told me that last Easter she had refused to work on Easter Sunday and had instead enjoyed time with her whānau.

She had made her decision for cultural and spiritual reasons. But upon returning to work she became aware that her colleagues had other reasons that had prevented them from being able to make the same decision that she had. She listed those reasons as being, one, pressure by the employers to work as part of the so-called team; two, the effect of upcoming appraisals, whereby it appeared that workers taking off Easter Sunday could well result in the boss claiming that they were unreliable; and, three, because of the low wages, workers felt compelled to work on Easter Sunday in order to earn time and a half. The lady’s letter ended with a plea: “We look to all Government leaders to protect retail workers from the kind of abuse of power that can happen in corporate-owned companies.”

I come to this debate on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill thinking about that wahine. I have some questions for the House. How well do the provisions in this bill express the hopes and dreams of workers for a better future? Do they take into account the views of workers on the shop floor, and their belief that an injury to one is an injury to all? What will the impact on workers be? Indeed, what is the nature of the actual demand for shops to open on Easter Sunday?

I have heard the advocates of Easter trading say that there is a demand for shops to open. I need to tell members that when I was at the Te HuiAhurei o Tūhoe on the Easter weekend, not one of the thousands of people there—workers and employers alike—made any suggestion that they would rather be working. So who is making the demand?

As the House is already aware, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 first amended shop trading hours. This was followed by the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Amendment Act 2001, which allowed garden centres to open on Easter Sunday. That was followed by a list of certain categories of shops that could trade on restricted days. I am told that these changes have made New Zealand one of the most liberalised shopping nations in the world—second only to Iceland. The fact that a precedent has been set, however, should not force anyone’s hand in determining how they vote on the bill. This bill, and Jacqui Dean’s bill before it, suggests some significant challenges to the public policy preference to retain certain special and protected days. We believe that in areas of debate that bring with them such major alterations to public policy, the process must, as a right, involve public consultation, local council decision-making, and ministerial oversight.

We were pleased to see in this current bill that much of the decision making would reside in the context of the territorial local authority area. Indeed, it would be up to councils to determine the decision. However—and it is a big however—allowing local communities to have their say through their councils could have the potential to extend trading way beyond the concept of limited exemptions.

The Māori Party supported the idea of territorial local authorities determining how the Act applies in their own unique situations, but we believe that it would be preferable for exemptions to be granted to limited localities within districts, rather than to the whole territorial local authority area. For example, in Rotorua, the limited locality might be the craft markets; in Auckland it might be the Viaduct or the Victoria Park markets; and in Porirua it might be the North City Plaza.

Here we come to one of the most critical areas in the Stevie Chadwick bill. It relates to the provision for local authorities to consult with their communities on the issue of Easter Sunday shop trading, and then to make a decision appropriate for the area. The bill enables councils to enact special consultative procedures to find out whether the locals want their shops to trade on Easter Sunday. The sponsor of the bill—member for Rotorua Stevie Chadwick—had suggested that the consultative procedures outlined in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 would be used, yet, in a strange turn of events, the Commerce Committee decided instead to recommend that section 83 of the Local Government Act be used. This change cuts across section 81 in Part 6 of the Local Government Act, which just happens to be the particular provisions for councils to consult with Māori communities. If the opportunity to consult with Māori is specifically prohibited by the select committee, we have to ask what that is about.

The National Distribution Union has spoken with us—like others, no doubt—about the possibility of exemptions being granted according to criteria, in order to limit trading to genuine cases. A genuine case would be defined as a significant event being held in the area and a sudden population boom being experienced due to the location being an Easter weekend destination. I think of Whanganui last Easter with the Hui Aranga, of Rūātoki with the Te HuiAhurei o Tūhoe, of Wānaka with the biennial air show, and of Rotorua every Easter.

Stevie Chadwick and I well know that Rotorua is the place to be, but it is even more so at Easter when our environment becomes really alive and passionate and is in the swing of Latin America. If members do not know, every Easter, Rotorua gets into the groove to the samba and salsa of the Jambalaya Festival, which is the biggest Latin American and Pasifika dance and music festival in Aotearoa. Forget about Dancing with the Stars, the Jambalaya Festival is for 3 days and 4 nights, and Rotorua transforms itself into a massive dance party.

Easter hui, Jambalaya, and air shows, no matter how spectacular, are all significant deviations to the norm—the type of exemption we could envisage as being associated with a major festival. As the member for Waiariki I would have supported a bill that responded to the unique needs of unique places such as Rotorua or of other areas that have a genuine case. I would have supported a case for genuine retailers to apply for an exemption in order to attract the tourist dollar for a specific purpose, rather than that we have just another commercial shopping day. There should be a specific purpose for a specific area. There was always a concern with this bill that the scope went so wide as to include everyone. Worse yet, the select committee removed the provisions dealing with section 81 of the Local Government Act that mandated the requirement to consult with Māori. If the member for Rotorua, Stevie Chadwick, had put up a bill that was specific to Rotorua and had those exemptions in place, I would have happily looked at supporting such a proposal.

I just want to return to the central issue at stake in this bill: the cost of a decent day’s work. “Decent” is an interesting concept to ponder further. Our research says that a comparison of the proportion of employees working 50 or more hours per week, among a selection of OECD countries, shows that New Zealand has one of the highest proportions of workers putting in long hours of paid work. Easter Sunday and Good Friday already have significance to Christians as occasions of special meaning, but in the context of concerns about long hours of paid work, we are also concerned about the possible negative effects for families and children of taking an extra day from the already pressured family calendar. Anyone in this House who is the parent of teenagers could verify that life is so busy that one almost needs to text them with appointments to add family time to their busy schedules, let alone if we were to delete another 2 days from the calendar.

Other research results from Unicef’s international Innocenti report at the start of this year threw up a whole lot of hard questions about how much time New Zealand families have to enjoy being together. Unfortunately, we are lagging behind many economically poorer countries, in variables such as parents spending time with their children and giving them due attention, and families sharing a meal together.

The Māori Party believes that we have to start talking seriously about the way in which New Zealanders balance the ever-competing pressures of paid work with the immeasurable value of quality family time. Workers and families have frequently reinforced the message that the need to earn enough income and the pressure of workplace practices have made it hard—in fact, almost impossible—to have a balanced life.

As we examine our conscience in the process of determining our position on the bill, we must not let the importance of whanaungatanga be undermined. The principle of whanaungatanga recognises that the people are our true wealth, and that an investment in whānau will provide a compelling foundation for future growth. We need to consider the benefits to employers and employees, in order to ensure that there are protections for workers. We need to always hold firm to those who will be with us at the start of the working day, at the end of the working day, and for all the hours in between. In light of that principle, we must vote against the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise to speak to the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill and again, for the second time tonight, I am speaking on my own behalf, with this being members’ day. Never before have I valued the role of conscience as much as I have today.

Can I explain to members, particularly those on the front bench of the National Party, that I was never privy to any discussions that fuelled Mr Copeland’s resignation. As I clarified to interested media this afternoon, I have never entertained the idea of leaving United Future. It is my political home and I am 100 percent supportive of both the Hon Peter Dunne and the strong stand our party has always taken on conscience votes, and of Mr Copeland’s right to exercise his.

So tonight I speak on my own behalf. Centre parties are very pragmatic around policy. We attract to ourselves people from a wide range of interests and persuasions, and that is our strength. On conscience issues, we respect individual choice, so United Future will be registering a second split vote tonight on this member’s bill. I will be voting against the bill. The reason I am opposing this bill is not because Easter is a religious holiday for me—one that I value personally. If that was what it was all about, then that would be me imposing something that is special for me on to the rest of the country. That is not my reason.

I remember that in my first reading speech I quoted Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who has a whole chapter about what he calls “public spaces” in one of his very wonderful books in which he talks about the fact that some things we value in society have no economic value, at all. He uses public parks as an example. We take prime real estate—land that could be used very productively for high-rise buildings, office rentals, and retail outlets—and we set it aside and plant it in gardens, because we understand that in the flurry of inner city life, people need somewhere to go to take time out, and that public parks provide that opportunity. Parks also provide public space for families to enjoy recreation together. Yet if we operated under monetary considerations, we would never set aside space for public parks, because they serve no economic good.

I believe that the 3½ days that we have left when huge numbers of people who work in our retail sector can have some time with their families do not make economic sense. But that is not why I am opposing this bill. The reason is that it makes no social sense.

On Anzac Day I went to the service in Whakatāne and really enjoyed what went on there. I spent some time with veterans and others afterwards. And then the shops opened. It occurred to me that in respect of the Easter trading bills we have been looking at, nobody seems to have taken the line that, if there was to be any movement, we could possibly have half-day restrictions rather than cancelling out whole days.

However, I am not sure that even then I could have supported the bill. I will tell members about one of the discussions I had that really affected my decision on this issue. It was a discussion with somebody from the Māori Party, who pointed out to me that for Māori people the Easter weekend is a really important one when extended family get together. Often iwi have sporting events, and it is the one weekend in a year that they can guarantee a really substantial turn-out of people, because of those 2 holidays. I had questioned whether it was fair that we had two holidays like this in the one weekend, and whether maybe one of those days could be spread somewhere else. But, no, I think it is really great that we do have one weekend in 52 in the year when families can get together.

When we look at the huge number of people in New Zealand who work in retail, we have to understand how many families this issue impacts. I do not think that I had appreciated the work that people in retail do and the large numbers involved in that sector until my children became adults. Certainly in their late teenage years they worked in retail for a while, and it was really, really hard to find an opportunity—particularly over the Christmas, new year, and holiday seasons—when we could actually get together as a family. We had 1 day on Christmas Day, but everybody had to leave early on Christmas Day to get back to their work obligations, so even that day was disrupted.

Here we are with a long weekend when families can get together—really, the only one we have left. I was raised in the days when shops did not open on Sundays, and that happened 52 Sundays of the year, or on a whole lot of other public holidays, when we could guarantee that we could have time with our family. My opposition to this bill is based on the fact that I fiercely oppose the notion that we would take away one more hour from the 3½ days that currently exist. I am very pleased that the unions back my approach; I think it is good to see them throwing their weight behind this and behind the retail workers. I think it is an appalling notion, and I am thoroughly opposed to it progressing any further.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I rise to speak to the second reading of the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, and I rise with pleasure to support Steve Chadwick in the debate on this bill. I think she should be congratulated on her perseverance, as she has had this bill before the House previously. I would also mention Jacqui Dean’s contribution with her bill on the previous members’ day, which the ACT party also supported.

A bill of this type, and a bill of the type that Jacqui Dean put forward, is very familiar to the ACT party. Patricia Schnauer first had such a bill before this House in 1997, during ACT’s first term in Parliament. That bill was defeated after the bill was taken over by Rodney Hide in 1999, when Patricia Schnauer was no longer in Parliament.

We have had a lot of correspondence about this bill, as I guess most members have, and in particular from Steve Chadwick’s own electorate. The Mayor of Rotorua has been very vocal on this issue. I had the opportunity to speak to him about this bill at a Rotary meeting I spoke at earlier this year in Rotorua, and more recently at the chamber of commerce, too.

There are very good business reasons for putting this bill forward, but they are not the only reasons. I think we have moved a long way in New Zealand. Those of us who have done our OE—and I suspect that is just about every one of us—used to make comments after coming back to New Zealand about New Zealand being closed on a Sunday. New Zealand has moved on significantly since then in that regard.

If this bill passes, local authorities in Rotorua, and other local authorities, will now have the opportunity to have a say as to whether shops are able to open on Easter Sunday. I will be supporting Jacqui Dean’s amendment, as will my colleague Rodney Hide, to add Good Friday to this legislation when it comes forward at the Committee stage. Rotorua and many towns like it have been disadvantaged particularly in tourism terms as a result of shops not being able to open and businesses not being able to ply their wares on Easter Sunday.

We face the farce every Easter of garden centres opening, flouting the law, and acknowledging that they will have to pay a fine if they are caught. Usually they are caught and they hand the money over.

Steve Chadwick: Green Party amendment.

HEATHER ROY: Steve Chadwick is quite right—a Green Party amendment. We have the farce of having a law in place that is flouted mercilessly—and for very good reason, because people want to go to garden centres and buy stuff so that they can then go home and participate in their gardening relaxation on a weekend when they have time to do so. The garden centres quite rightfully take advantage of that.

I want to make this call a very short one. Many speakers have said that workers are severely disadvantaged by this bill. Workers have the choice of whether they want to work on Easter Sunday. Some people seem to think that workers have their arms twisted and are forced to go out and work on those days; they completely ignore the fact that many people around this country actually want to work, because they want to earn more money. They do so for very sound reasons. They have families to support and they choose for themselves their work-life balance and the time they spend with their families. They find other times to do that. I have to say that I have no sympathy at all for that argument.

ACT proudly supports this bill. We will also be supporting Jacqui Dean’s amendment to the bill so that Good Friday can be incorporated into the legislation. I hope this bill passes its second reading tonight, because it is long overdue and has long been debated. I look forward to the day when businesses—like individuals—get to make choices about whether they open when the demand from the public and tourists is there.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : In speaking on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill tonight, I acknowledge my colleague Steve Chadwick. She has done what a good local member does—and Steve Chadwick is no doubt a very good local member for Rotorua—and has brought forward an issue that is of concern to her constituency. She has done that in a way whereby she has worked with the Commerce Committee to make the required amendments, so that the bill comes forward in the best possible state for this House to vote on.

However, I will be voting in opposition to this bill. For me, it simply comes down to the fact that when I made my maiden speech in this Parliament not too long ago—about 18 months ago—I talked about work-life balance being one of the main issues that I wanted to address in my role as a member of Parliament. If I apply the test of the work-life balance to this bill, then I find it does not pass muster. I cannot support this bill when it would do so much to disrupt the work-life balance of retail workers in particular, and of distribution workers as well. As many members have pointed out, the bill would also disrupt the one 4-day weekend we have available in this country. That is time that families can spend together: when family members can come from all the four corners of the earth where they now live, and can travel from throughout New Zealand, to gather together. The 4-day Easter weekend is a very important occasion, because it is the only time when we have 4 days in which we can travel, make those journeys, and gather together.

It has been very interesting to listen to the debate this evening, because I have had a bit of a history lesson. I feel even more confident in opposing this bill, knowing that Max Bradford once made a complete hash of the Easter trading legislation. I know Max Bradford as the man who tried to take everyone’s holidays away from them and to sell workers completely down the tubes.

Peter Brown: Who stopped that?

SUE MORONEY: I think it actually might have been Labour that campaigned against that. In fact, the unions campaigned very strongly against it. The unions, of course, have campaigned strongly against the bill that is before the House at the moment.

I feel very good about being able to stand up and voice my opposition to this bill on that basis, but also because doing so allows me to pay homage to three particularly important areas in my life. Voting against this bill allows me to uphold the principles of my trade union activism, which is a very strong aspect of my background. Voting against the bill also allows me to uphold the principles of the religious upbringing that I had. It is a great day for me in the House when, with one vote, I can please both sides of my background—both my trade union activism and my religious upbringing. May I say it is not the first time that that has occurred, because the principles underlying both trade union activism and religious affiliation are very closely aligned. Opposing this bill allows me to please both sides. The third aspect that the bill also brings out for me is the issue of being very focused on family life. Those three issues—trade union activism, religious affiliation, and caring about families and the time that families have together—make absolute sense to me in my opposition to this bill.

Earlier in the debate this evening, the member for Piako, Lindsay Tisch, stood and talked about the submission that came forward from the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce. I want to talk to the House about that submission in more detail, because I think it underlines one of the real ironies, and perhaps one of the inequities, in what the House is actually considering. What the member for Piako did not alert the House to is that although the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce wished for retailers in Cambridge to have the right to open and trade on Easter Sunday, in fact almost all of them choose not to open on every other Sunday of the year. Although Cambridge retailers by and large do not trade on most Sundays of the year, they have come forward and asked to have the right to trade on Easter Sunday.

When we talk about fairness, a level playing field, and equity and equality in this situation, I think we need to be really clear on what we are talking about. Cambridge is a town that does not have a particular event happening over Easter. No great numbers of people are flocking from elsewhere to go to Cambridge. But what Cambridge does have—as most small towns in New Zealand have—is lots and lots of traffic driving past on that weekend. That is what Cambridge is trying to capture. So those members who think that by voting for this bill, they are really just focusing on the few places that have particular festivals happening at Easter should please think again. Cambridge—not the people of Cambridge, but the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce—is asking for Easter trading. No particular festival happens in Cambridge, but lots and lots of traffic drives past—as it does past most small towns in New Zealand. That is what will drive many of those communities to consider this measure; it will not be an issue of whether they have a significant event that happens in those communities.

I also want to draw to members’ attention the issue of the 3½ days we have left in the year when it is not lawful for all of the shops in this country to open carte blanche. That is important. There is lots of work still to be done in this country; there are lots of issues still to deal with. But, really, the chance to shop on an extra 3½ days—is that really the most pressing issue that we need to consider in this Parliament? I would say it is not. I would say it would be a backwards step if we were to cut any further into those 3½ sacrosanct days.

As I was considering this issue, I noted that over the most recent Easter weekend we had the most fabulous weather. We had brilliant weather for people to get out and do things with their families. It struck me, when I was spending time with my family on Easter Sunday, that the location I was in had shops that opened illegally on that day. What I chose to do—and what lots of people chose to do with their families—was spend time walking along the beach with my family. I think that is a wonderful thing for people to do at Easter—and at other weekends, as it happens.

There are people in this Parliament who think that it is the right of anyone to open his or her shop doors at any time the person pleases, and that the issue is about freedom. Freedom for whom? The freedom to shop until you drop? The freedom to do something that can be done on however many other days there are in the rest of the year? What is 365 minus 3½? I do not know; that is not my strong point. Whatever that number of days is, that is when people can get to do their shopping. So what is it the freedom to do? And what freedom do the workers in the retail sector have?

I want to reply to those members who, I think, are very well meaning and who are interested in the worker protection provisions that this bill brings forward. I just remind them that in the real world, and in the real workplace, it is not easy for 16-year-old retail workers to point to a piece of legislation they do not even know about, and to say to the boss that they have the right to refuse to work and to have those days off. That does not happen in the real world. In the real world all sorts of subtle pressures come on people to say, yes, they will work on those days—even though they will not necessarily be compensated any differently from how they would be on any other day of the year. Those subtle pressures include the action of the employer, by right, in offering to people particular rosters that may or may not suit them, and the issue that has already been canvassed that when performance appraisals or promotions are coming up, bosses may possibly be better disposed towards workers who agree to work on Easter Sunday than towards those who do not. Those are all the sorts of things that actually happen out there in the real workplace.

In closing, I bring forward a quote that really nails this issue for me. It is from the Catholic bishops of New Zealand. They talked about the role of this Parliament in ensuring we have a society that is humane. Their comment about bringing in Easter Sunday trading was that they believed that it would lead to a “society less human”, and I agree with that statement. Thank you.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : I rise to speak on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. I initially supported the previous bill on this topic, Jacqui Dean’s Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill, which was so ably spoken to by my colleague Mark Blumsky. I appreciate, having been a member of the Commerce Committee that examined these bills, that it was decided to run the two together as they had a similar objective. My choice to support Jacqui Dean’s bill was driven mostly by the fact that it obliged Parliament to actually make a decision on the issue that it would then be responsible for implementing. The difference between that bill and this one is that with this one Parliament is making a decision that will then be devolved to local authorities, which will have to make their own decisions.

I note the point raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, but it raises in my mind the difficulty that if Parliament cannot make up its mind on this issue and apply it, why do we imagine that it will be easier for local authorities to make up their minds? I seem to recall a measure of support for that particular view within the membership of the Commerce Committee—and it was an enjoyable committee to be part of. However, that option has gone, and we now have to look at this bill, which requires the territorial authorities to decide whether retail shops in their districts may open on Easter Sunday, and also requires the territorial authorities, before making any such decisions, to consult their communities by adopting the special consultative procedure provided for in section 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. I am personally not comfortable with the way this matter has been handled, but I accept that it is part of the bill, and is probably now not significant enough to seek to amend it.

This particular bill relates to shop trading over Easter, which has always, in my memory, been a contentious issue. I guess that it is a case of those who want it most not achieving everything they expect from it, but those who want it least finding, hopefully, that it is not quite as bad as they expected it might be. There have been a considerable number of submissions on this bill, and I was impressed by the sincerity of the carefully considered presentations that the committee received.

There were religious objections, which to some extent have been modified and lessened, perhaps, by the exclusion of Good Friday from this particular bill. I think that will be very pleasing to a number of people whom I know had serious concerns over that. As a practising Presbyterian, I have full regard for the religious significance of Easter. Indeed, for many Easter is a more sacramentally significant season in the Church than Christmas is. Throughout my career, though, I have engaged in a number of activities associated with agricultural work, and agricultural work is a 7-day-a-week industry. I have frequently been obliged to work over the Easter period. I have never, though—and I have gone right through my mind on this—been prevented from making it to church on Good Friday or on Easter Sunday. The reason is that the Churches recognise that not everyone has discretion about when he or she can attend church, and usually within communities services are held at a variety of times so that options are available. People might not always go to the churches they usually go to, but, as I say, I have never had difficulty in getting to a church.

Speaking entirely for myself—I feel that in religious matters I am authorised to speak of my own feelings and not of those of others—I have never felt disturbed, from a religious point of view, by anything that others choose to do on Easter Day. I do not think the majority of devout people expect to impose their personal religious views on others who do not hold them.

A most compelling argument, though, to my mind, came from my parliamentary colleagues in the Māori Party, who expressed extreme concern during the select committee discussion over the fact that this bill affects holidays and family get-together opportunities. I think it was Hone Harawira, when speaking to this bill, who said—[Interruption]—ha, ha; I am getting a measure of support here—that Easter is really the only 4-day occasion when we can have a holiday legitimately. In other words—I think these were his words but I will make them my own—people do not have to throw sickies or invent reasons for not being at work. That is a significant feature of Easter—the 4-day holiday. I know that in the area I live in, on the West Coast, grandmothers always expect grandchildren and families to come home for Easter.

I am not sure that the select committee met that objection by building in safeguards for worker protection, but the bill does override conditions of employment to the extent that they are inconsistent with the requirement of the bill. I have listened to previous speakers, and I really wondered whether the people speaking recently from the other side of the House were actually Steve Chadwick’s friends or not. They seemed to ignore the fact that the select committee had put quite a lot of work into the matter of employment conditions and avoidance of compulsion in terms of people working over the holiday period.

There is no doubt, though, that it is no accident we have two bills going in the same direction from both sides of the House. The opportunity to shake off some of the regulated aspects of our lives does not come very often these days, under this Government, but—by gosh—the events of today and perhaps over the next few weeks will probably change that. Someone said to me today: “You know, Chris, political power ebbs and flows; the flows are getting longer and the ebbs are getting shorter.” I thought I would pass that on to my friend Charles Chauvel; I knew that he would like it. The flows are getting longer for National, and the ebbs are getting shorter—and Labour members know it.

The trade union representation at the select committee was sincerely delivered, and concentrated on conditions of pay, compulsion to work, etc. Again, it was an understandable approach, because those people were representing their members.

I listened to speakers on the previous bill, and I was a little surprised at some of the views expressed. They were clinging to the sanctity of the Easter holidays without any reference to the religiosity of the holiday’s origin. As a liberal Christian, I see no reason for the implication that religious holidays should be imposed on those without religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation. I believe in religious freedom, and I believe in personal freedom—the freedom to adhere to religion, or not. I guess, though, that the reality is that Easter is seen as a general holiday rather than purely a religious one.

That there is a demand for Easter trading is a reality. For food distributors, I understand that Easter is already bigger than Christmas in terms of turnover. I note the strident call of members of the Labour Government, speaking on behalf of their particular interests, about working hours and about people being without the choice whether to work. This bill, as noted by Mr Flavell, embodies worker protection. As a member of the select committee, I am conscious of the efforts of the committee to ensure worker and employee protection. There is no compulsion to work, and no penalty for deciding not to—and any opinion beyond that shows a lack of faith in the parliamentary process. I would have expected better from a Government that makes all sorts of claims about itself—claims that are fading. The long flows are coming, and the short ebbs. We always know when there is trouble in the Labour Party leadership: if we look at the junior whip, we see that his smile has become fixed; his smile has become a Botox smile—Botox is injected in there. He says that everything is fine, but the very bits of paper he picks up shake when he reads them.

I suggest that members stand back a little from ideological issues and look at the situation from a practical and commercial point of view. Where I live on the West Coast of the South Island, most shops shut at 5 p.m. on the knocker, Monday to Friday. Come the weekend, most Coasters exercise their work-life balance and pursue recreation, sport, or family activities. I can honestly say that work-life balance was practised on the West Coast long before it became a buzzword, long before it came into vogue. If many shops on the coast were open at Easter, I doubt they would get much trade.

This bill does not make it compulsory for shops to open. It does not compel people to work. But it does allow choice. It will not damage religious celebration. On that basis, I support the bill. It is significant that it is one of two members’ bills that go in the same direction. I think it merits a wide range of support. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : Thank you, Mr Speaker—

Hon Tau Henare: Here we go—comedy hour.

DARIEN FENTON: Here we go? OK—well, especially after that last speech! I will be voting against the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. Although I understand why my very, very good colleague Steve Chadwick is sponsoring this bill—and may I say she does a very fine job as the member for Rotorua—I support the more than 200,000 workers in the retail industry who are opposed to this bill. I must say that I have not heard a lot of talk about them. Their views are very important in this debate, because they are the ones who will have to do the work if this bill passes. They are saying a very loud no. If they are paid for it, they are not paid anything extra. Why should they have to work on Easter Sunday when everyone—

Hon Tau Henare: Oh, come on!

DARIEN FENTON: —and when Mr Henare gets a holiday on Easter Sunday. He gets time to spend with his family. Let us consider the life of a shop worker. Clearly, the Hon Tau Henare has never worked in a shop.

Lynne Pillay: He’s never worked anywhere.

DARIEN FENTON: He has never worked anywhere—that is true! The life of a shop worker is not an easy one. Most shop workers work in supermarkets, department stores, or smaller retail outlets. They are low-paid workers; indeed, many are paid youth rates. They can be required to work on any of the 7 days or nights in a week, in the weekend, and on most public holidays. Their start and finish times can be very different every day. They are highly casualised and they have low levels of unionisation, which means they have little power to negotiate on an individual basis. Around 65 percent of shop workers are under the age of 18 and in their first jobs, and they know little about their rights. That makes them particularly vulnerable, and that is what I am concerned about.

The problem with this bill goes further up the food chain, as well. The bill affects not only shop workers but also distribution and transport workers. The pressure will go on them, as well, to deliver goods to shops for Easter Sunday. So I support retail workers in their determination to put a stop to the never-ending quest for increased working hours that has pervaded our working culture.

Because of the debate around Jacqui Dean’s bill before Easter this year, I took particular notice of what was happening around me where I live in west Auckland. Yes, the retail shops were closed on Good Friday and on Easter Sunday. Did the world end? No, of course it did not. I did not notice signs of major shopping withdrawals around the streets in Auckland. I did notice that it was easy to buy petrol, to get stuff from dairies, to hire a video, to go to the garden centre, or to go down the road for a latte, because the law already provides for that. However, I saw families not shopping but enjoying the day together—going to the beach, walking around the waterfront, and going on picnics. I want that to continue. If everybody is working, that will not be able to happen.

Other speakers have referred to the problem we have in New Zealand of an exceptionally long working hours culture. We all like to talk about work-life balance, and it is good that the member Chris Auchinvole has work-life balance on the West Coast, but may I tell him that we have it nowhere else in the country. It is something that is acknowledged as being important not only to individual workers and their families but also to employers and the economy. It is important that people find a good balance between paid work and other aspects of their lives, and when this balance is not found, people may suffer from stress or anxiety. Long working hours, or non-standard working hours, compromise work-life balance, along with productivity, skills development, and the ability of employers to recruit and retain workers. This bill does nothing to address the never-ending demands for work intensification and longer hours. It is time we stopped for a minute and thought about that, because it is creating community and family problems.

A recently released work-life balance snapshot by the Department of Labour confirmed the trend of increasingly long working hours. Nineteen percent of workers said they work more than 50 hours a week. Hours of work vary for 40 percent of those workers: 18 percent do shift work, and about a quarter work extra hours at work in their own time to get their jobs done, often without pay. The 2001 Thirty Families – Work Hours report commissioned by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions also showed that the hours worked by many families are too long, with many working an average of 45 to 50 hours per week and some working even longer hours. Almost all of those who were surveyed regularly worked more than 45 hours a week, and they regarded those hours as long, unreasonable, and with significant negative effects on their own lives and the lives of their families.

I acknowledge that the Commerce Committee endeavoured to address workers’ issues in the bill, in particular the right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday. Although that is admirable, I have to say that some of the contributions in the House tonight show that some members live in la-la land when it comes to the workplace. Members should imagine what it is like for young shop workers in their first jobs, and what incredible bravery it would take to say no to employers who wanted them to work on Easter Sunday. As others have said, when people are working in a team it is very easy to convey a message that they are letting down the firm and their workmates, and that it means that their jobs could be affected. Whether that is right or wrong, that is how people see it. Shop workers also know that if they say no, some other poor sucker will have to cop working on that day instead. So we do need to be realistic about what life is like for young retail workers in this still very deregulated labour market. It is hard enough for older workers in more established industries to say no.

I want to mention a couple of members’ Supplementary Order Papers that have been talked about tonight. I will consider Mr Brown’s proposed Supplementary Order Paper, of course—if we get that far—but I think that once we have let the genie out of the bottle, checking on whether workers are being treated fairly 2 years down the track will be a little hard. It will be really hard to put things back. I say in respect of MaryanStreet’s Supplementary Order Paper that it is better than what is being proposed. It will be good, if it passes, that workers will get Easter Sunday recognised as a public holiday. But I also think there are a whole lot of other workers out there—hospitality workers, who will be working alongside shop workers in many instances, and working in the cafeteria or the bar next door on Easter Sunday—who will not be getting time and a half, and a day in lieu. They will quite rightly feel aggrieved, and I think that will lead to a demand for Easter Sunday to be recognised as a public holiday for all workers.

The problem I see is that we have few regulations around working hours. Regulations were done away with by those members over there who were in Government in 1990. The only thing that workers can rely on in terms of regulation is their employment agreements. If an employment agreement is a union agreement, the worker will be fine; the agreement will have provisions for reasonable working hours and a health and safety requirement. But let us be honest: in small retail shops workers are not likely to be considered where pressure is on to deliver maximum profit. So I do not support any extension to working hours in whatever form and in whatever industry.

The bill as reported back provides for territorial local authorities to allow shops in their areas to open after consultation with the community. I have talked to some territorial local authorities and they have said to me that this is not a responsibility they want to take on. The letters from the Auckland City Council and the Waitakere City Council make it clear that those bodies do not support the bill. They urge us to cherish the number of shopping-free days we currently enjoy for the sake of our families and communities, and for the sake of shop workers and their lives.

I note that there is a proposal—it was referred to earlier—to review how the Shop Trading Hours Act, the Sale of Liquor Act, and the Holidays Act operate over Easter weekend. I would welcome that. It may provide a way forward, but I would not support any proposal that resulted in a blanket right to trade on Easter Sunday. We have a chance tonight to put a halt to the increasing demands that we see on workers for more and more hours to be worked.

Chris Auchinvole: Oh, yeah!

DARIEN FENTON: That member does not do it, so how does he know? It would be good if for once in this Parliament we could agree on 1 or 2 days of the year where we do not have to have shopping, and agree that families should be put before commerce. It is time that members of this Parliament started to think about the people who do the work in the retail industry instead of themselves, and instead of the commercial imperatives that drive the issues behind this bill.