TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : I move, That the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. New Zealand has a proud history of freedom of expression, of listening to everyday New Zealanders, and of empowering local communities to take responsibility for the places they live in. This Parliament has a proud record of inviting all citizens to offer their views on issues of conscience. We can be proud that we have encouraged every citizen to make their thoughts known to us before we make tough decisions. However, since the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act was adopted in 1990, the city of Rotorua has been excluded from providing a full range of services to tourists and to visitors. You see, Rotorua is, and continues to be, the pre-eminent tourist and visitor destination in New Zealand. Easter weekend is one of our busiest weekends; many, many thousands of domestic and international visitors come to see us during this time.

It is not a weekend where mums and dads want to buy cut-rate plasma screen televisions, or the latest in trendiest school shoes for little Johnny. They can do that, if they choose, over many other days of the year. Largely, local people choose to spend time with families, or to get away from Rotorua because it is a busy weekend, or they choose even to go out and fix a fence, have a barbecue, or mow the lawn—great Kiwi pastimes. It is a weekend where tourists from all over the world visit us, experience the many wonders we have to offer, eat and drink, relax, and do many of the things that people choose to do when they are on holiday, which does include shop.

The people of Rotorua want a choice. During the campaign last year Steve Chadwick and I both committed to represent the people of Rotorua, and to work to offer Rotorua this choice—the choice to cater to the very many diverse requirements of visitors to our city over Easter.

Parliament has dealt with this issue many times in the past, and I believe that this could be the 10th time since 1990 that we will have considered Easter trading. Others before me have attempted to offer Easter trading on all days of that weekend, including Good Friday, but my bill does not do that. There have been attempts to bring the same rules to all parts of New Zealand for Easter weekend, but, again, my bill does not seek to do that, either. There have been attempts to compel leaseholders to open their shops, and workers to work on these days; again, my bill does not do that. What my bill does do is offer choice. It empowers local communities, through their councils, to decide for themselves what changes they might want in the towns they live in, on Easter Sunday. It will allow councils bound by the provisions of the Local Government Act to consult the public, to consider the views of their residents, and to decide where there is a clear local desire to pass a by-law to cover trade on this day. For my part of New Zealand, we would seek this change.

However, for the majority of towns and cities in rural areas, there is little need to allow shops to open. In Rotorua there is a very clear need to offer local people choice—to offer the people of Rotorua the opportunity to decide for themselves whether their shops should open to cater to tourists on Easter Sunday. Any part of New Zealand that does not want different trading practices needs to take no action at all, and current restrictions will remain in place, in full.

The current law is quite messy, to say the least. The issues are well-rehearsed: Taupō can open on Easter Sunday, yet 80 kilometres away Rotorua does not have that choice. Queenstown can open, and caters to a thriving tourist clientele; just down the road, Wānaka cannot. There is therefore no blanket ban on Easter trading in New Zealand. However, we see arbitrary rules: some local communities can trade on Easter Sunday while others cannot.

This is not a debate about whether Taupō or Queenstown, Rotorua or Wānaka are the most important tourist destinations. All four, clearly, are important to the country, and to their local communities. This is a debate about local communities, such as Rotorua, Wānaka, and any other such tourist destination, having a choice at a local level over what they want to do on Easter Sunday. As New Zealand’s tourism profile changes, we need to have a law on Easter Sunday trading that is flexible enough to deal with changing profiles. My bill provides flexibility for local communities to determine for themselves whether to open on Easter Sunday, as their needs change, rather than have them come back to Parliament each time to ask for an exception. My bill will not compel shops to open in Rotorua, or in any part of New Zealand. No provision in the current or future shop-lease agreement will compel any shop to open against the owner’s wishes. My bill will not compel any worker in Rotorua, or in New Zealand, to work on Easter Sunday, should he or she not wish to do so; no part of a current or future employment contract would be enforceable against a worker who does not wish to work on that day. This bill will not compel any person—local, tourist, visitor, or member of Parliament—to shop on this day; it will be their choice whether to do so.

I have received many messages from groups and individuals over the last few months on this bill. Many people have been supportive, but there are some people who harbour reservations. I respect all these views, but the overwhelming message I have received is in support of local choice so that these decisions can be made locally. I have received many, many messages from people and organisations who have asked that this bill be referred to a select committee so that their views can be heard, and I respect those requests. These people have told me they support choice. They support local residents and local communities deciding for themselves what choices they want in their home town on Easter Sunday.

I ask the House for support to refer this bill to a select committee so that all New Zealanders can have a say on whether choice is important to them. Voting today to refer this bill to a select committee does not mean that members are in favour of trading on Easter Sunday. It merely sends the message that they are in favour of churches, union members, chambers of commerce, workers, shop owners, and individual citizens having a say on whether this bill should be amended, adopted, or rejected by this Parliament as a whole.

One of the great attractions New Zealand has as a visitor destination is our nimbleness in catering for the different needs of international visitors. Many of our tourism industries are small operators working hard to make a living in difficult international environments. Small ideas can flourish into great successes stories that create jobs and help our local economies. Who would have thought 30 years ago that tying a rubber band to one’s legs and jumping off a bridge would be a major export earner? Who could have conceived, 30 years ago, that getting into a boat and watching whales would be a multimillion-dollar business? Rotorua is one community that needs the flexibility to be able to trade on Easter Sunday and to be competitive with other areas of New Zealand that already allow this. My community is asking for this choice.

This weekend Rotorua celebrates a great milestone. Rotorua Regional Airport will become trans-Tasman when we welcome our first scheduled flight from Sydney. This is exciting for Rotorua and the Bay of Plenty. Air New Zealand will bring Australians to our city twice each week. Many more Australians will visit us, and our Easter weekend will become busier and more important to our tourism operators and tourist shops. For 20 long years Parliament has told Rotorua that we cannot decide for ourselves what to do over Easter weekend. Parliament has told us that we cannot decide to work—open our shops and cater to the demands of visitors and tourists on this day. My hope is for MPs from all parties to understand that in Rotorua we want the right to choose for ourselves what we will do on Easter Sunday. We do not want to tell others in other parts of the country what they should do—that is a choice for them. We ask Parliament to support us. I ask the House to support my bill’s referral to a select committee. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand that the next call is a split call. Two members will have 5 minutes, and there will be a bell at 4 minutes.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I will be voting against this Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill. I am proud to be a voice for the 267,000 workers in the retail industry who are overwhelmingly opposed to having their guaranteed day off on Easter Sunday taken away. Retail workers have, once again, had to rally around to fight yet another attempt to take away one of only 3½ days in every year when they can put their families ahead of the firm. Their views are important in this debate, because they, not Mr McClay and not any of us, will have to do the work if this bill passes, and those workers are asking this Parliament not to agree that they should have to give up Easter Sunday.

Working as a shop worker is not an easy life. Most retail workers are low paid and many are on the minimum wage. They can be required to work on any of the 7 days in any week, or nights for that matter. They can also be required to work on the weekend and on most public holidays, and I note that they get no extra pay for working on the weekend. Their start and finish times can vary enormously—the hours can be different every day—and they are highly casualised. A large percentage of the workers who work in shops are between 15 and 19 years of age. Many are in their first jobs and know little about their rights. This makes retail workers more vulnerable than most workers, and with almost no power to negotiate on an individual basis or to stand up against big marketing and lobbying campaigns from business. They have little voice, and, as I said, I am proud to speak for them in this Parliament.

To suggest that this bill protects workers’ right to choose—and Mr McClay used the word “choice” a lot—whether they work on Easter Sunday shows an ignorance of the reality of the working experiences of many retail workers. The reality is that where a young worker is approached by the employer to work, the disapproval and a fear of losing their job would be enough for most workers to agree to work on Easter Sunday. It is very easy for an employer to convey the message that saying no means letting down the firm and one’s workmates, or it means that one’s next performance review will not be a good one. Shop workers often know that if they say no, then some other poor worker will have to pick up the job on Easter Sunday.

Easter Sunday is part of the only long weekend left where retail workers can expect the right—the right—to have time off to spend with their whānau, to practise their religion if they are Christian as it is an important day in the Christian calendar, or just to rest from the demands of their jobs. Shops can trade on 51 out 52 Sundays already—51 out of 52 Sundays—and on every public holiday except Good Friday, Christmas Day, and the morning of Anzac Day. As I said earlier, there are just 3½ days in every year when shop workers know that they will not be expected to work.

I am somewhat disappointed that we are debating this issue yet again in Parliament when it has already been debated many times, as the member said, and there have been many, many reviews. Actually, while I am talking about reviews, I must say that the Government, which that member is part of, is currently conducting a review of the Holidays Act. The issue of Easter shop trading is included in that, so if we are talking about people having a say and giving their views, then that, surely, would be the place to do it. I urge the member to put his bill on hold until the results of that inquiry are known, so that people know that that process is genuine.

I have said before that New Zealand’s long and unregulated work hours need to be addressed, but this bill only adds to the never-ending demands for work intensification and longer hours. I note that Caritas, the Catholic social justice agency, which is opposed to this bill, has invited Mr McClay to sacrifice some of his Christmas plans to discuss this Easter shop trading bill. I hope that he takes up that invitation, because he at least has a choice. If this bill is passed, the workers will have no choice. Mr McClay likes to talk about choice, so let us see what choice he makes.

Today we have the chance to mean what we say when we express concern about community and family problems, because we know that long working hours and the intensification of work are causing social problems. We have the chance today to put the interests of people and families ahead of the interests of firms and businesses, and I think it is time to halt the increasing demand on workers for intensification of their working hours.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) : I, too, rise to oppose the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill, which has been put forward by Todd McClay. It may come as a surprise to Mr McClay, but my view is that people do not go to Rotorua on Easter weekend to go shopping. I think they probably go to Rotorua to do other things. Maybe they want to go to the hot pools, or perhaps they want look at the amazing natural features—the lakes, perhaps. There are many things to see and there is a very interesting history there. In fact, if they really do want to shop, there are at least two days on Easter weekend when they can do so. That is the first point.

I do not think that there is really a problem to be addressed here. I think it is naive to say these two things: that this issue is about choice—that everybody has a free choice—and that shops will open on Easter Sunday only in particular areas where everybody agrees to that. I have to say that both those comments are very, very naive. I noticed that during the debate on this bill Simon Bridges was interjecting “Mount Maunganui next!”, and that is the reality. We know—and we can see it if we look at the history—that when shop trading hours were liberalised in this country, within a very short period indeed shops went to full opening on Saturdays, Sundays, and evenings very, very quickly throughout New Zealand. So I do not buy the argument that this is about choice and will happen only in certain locations. Shops, with few exceptions, now trade 361½ days per year. New Zealand has one of the most liberal shop trading regimes in the world.

I will give a small history lesson, because I have had a long association with the retail industry and with retail workers. The history is that in 1990 most shops could not trade on any Sunday, and they were unable to open on nine of the 11 recognised public holidays. Now they can trade on 51 out of 52 Sundays, and on every public holiday except Good Friday, Christmas Day, and the morning of Anzac Day. That year was the occasion when Rotorua went from not having any of those things to gaining all of that time for shops to be open. We are still arguing about whether shops should also be able to open on Easter Sunday.

Frankly, I will have no difficulty at all voting against this bill. It will not be, as members opposite try to argue, just about unionists. It is not. As my colleague Darien Fenton has said, churches oppose these changes, as does Family First, which is not normally an organisation I have a great deal in common with. Many, many people and organisations oppose this change, and it is because Easter is a very significant holiday in New Zealand. It is significant for a range of reasons. It is significant because it has religious significance for many. Its family significance is very, very important, as is its community significance. Let us look at the number of events, whether they be anniversaries, reunions, or sporting events, that take place over Easter weekend. That is because the holiday provides an opportunity for many workers and many families to get together.

Retail workers are a not insignificant proportion of our workforce. As Ms Fenton said, there are 267,000 retail workers. Mr McClay says that they cannot be forced to work. That might be technically true, but often they are vulnerable workers. That is partly because many of them are young and many of them are in very casualised situations, but it is for other reasons, as well. In many shops the staffing levels are very, very tight. There is not a whole pool of people who could be there working. Secondly, many of those workers get a lot of pressure, direct or indirect, to work, because if they do not, they are not team players, and because they recognise that if they do not, it will put pressure on their colleagues. So there are a lot of dynamics in shops, as I am sure Mr McClay would discover if he took the time to talk to retail workers. Retail workers have consistently fought against further liberalisation of our shop trading hours. That is because they want to spend time with their family and friends, and take part in community events.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : Good on Todd McClay for bringing the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill to the House. Good on Todd McClay for standing up on behalf of the people of Rotorua, whom he proudly represents in this Parliament. Good on Todd McClay for having yet another crack at getting some sense into an Act that is widely acknowledged as being full of anomalies and making little sense in today’s retail, domestic, and international tourism environment. Good on Todd McClay for bringing this legislation to the House.

I fully support this legislation, and I will tell members why. It is because my community of Wānaka is also one of those tourism destinations in New Zealand that relies on trading over Easter to make up to 20 percent of its annual retail figures.

Hon Member: How much?

JACQUI DEAN: Up to 20 percent. That is significant for retailers in Wānaka, who, despite being in a tourism area, have to get through a tough winter environment and the tourism shoulder seasons, which can see retail being a difficult area to be in. This excellent bill of Todd McClay’s has been thought through and it is well considered. He has drawn on attempts to bring legislation through the House in the past and it is eminently sensible. I tell members that that is because it is about choice. This bill leaves the decision about Easter trading to the local authority in that area. Who better to know the needs of a community and a retail sector than the local authority in which it lies?

I will refer to a previous submission from July 2006, and I know that the feelings have not changed. The submission was on behalf of Clive Geddes, the Mayor of Queenstown Lakes District Council. I believe that Mr Geddes is well placed to make a submission on this bill, because in one of his towns there is the ability under the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act to trade over Easter, under a previous iteration of this legislation, yet in another part of his local authority area—in the town of Wānaka, which is equally a tourism destination—there is not the ability to trade over Easter. Has family life been destroyed in Queenstown because its businesses can trade over Easter? I believe not.

I know that community very well. I know the chamber of commerce in Queenstown quite well, and, interestingly enough, people in Queenstown like to work. In Queenstown there are a number of young people, and not so young people, in the retail sector. Some of them are in permanent jobs and some are in temporary jobs. They like to work. They welcome the opportunity to work some extra hours. As we all know, young people like to work during the day to make money in order to have a great time at night, which, of course, is what they do in Queenstown. Life is fantastic for the workers of Queenstown because the have the opportunity to make a contribution to their town. They work during the day over Easter and they sure as heck party at night. That is one of the things that makes Queenstown one of the great places in New Zealand. The great shame is that people in Wānaka, just over the Crown Range, do not have that ability because of a strange anomaly within the law. So when Clive Geddes, the Mayor of Queenstown Lakes District Council, makes a submission, it is from a man who knows what he is talking about.

I hope that this bill gets sent to a select committee for good consideration. I know that this bill has the support of the chamber of commerce in Wānaka. The members of it are most anxious to have the ability to open at Easter. The Warbirds over Wānaka International Air Show comes to Wānaka every second year. We also have the Race to the Sky. Up to 100,000 people come into Wānaka over the course of the Easter weekend. Those people want to shop and they want to have the ability to shop. I hope that this bill has a successful passage through the House so that they can do so.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) : I congratulate Todd McClay on his first private bill, the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill. I know we sit at the back and poke fun at each other, but he has had the luck of the draw. This is also my first speech on a conscience issue, and I want to take it seriously and talk about the reasons why I will not support this bill.

I remember very well bringing up my children in a community in New Zealand where we had the time to spend at least one and a half days a week with our children, to go to the beach. We could rush around for 4 hours in the morning and buy whatever we wanted, but we could spend the rest of the weekend with our children, taking them to the beach and having barbecues. We could provide the best environment that we could in order to ensure that our children were the best that they could be. They could grow up with their parents around them. Those were great times. I have spoken to many people around the country who ask why we went as far as we did to open up the weekends for one reason only, which was for trade. They ask why we did not balance the interests of our families and our children with the interests of commerce and the interests of our community. Unfortunately, my conscience will not allow me to vote for this bill, because there is no balance in this measure. It does not take care of the interests of very young people.

We can go further and contemplate for a while, and ask ourselves why it is that day in and day out when this House is sitting, and when we are elsewhere—in our electorates and in the communities that we visit—we are told about the difficulties that our families are experiencing. People tell us about the level of violence in our community. Young people tell us how disconnected they feel from their parents, their elders, and their communities. They say the level of abuse is very high.

Simon Bridges: They blame Labour.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The member might like to follow up on that, because it is a serious issue. This bill is quite an anti-family measure, and my conscience will not allow me—with the greatest of respect to Mr McClay—to support it.

When we ask parents, and when we look at all of the research, what do we find? The member has not read the research findings, clearly, because the one thing that families tell us time and time again, and that we find in research report after research report, is that families require more time. Family members say they require more time to spend with each other doing the kinds of things that give our children the best start in life and forming relationships that are enduring, yet members come here and complain about the breakdown of relationships and about parents being disconnected from their children. Well, I will not vote for a measure that would jeopardise the interests of families. Our children and our families feel disconnected, and our youth are disconnected. If we really wanted to address their needs, then we would look at some of the drivers of that. Members opposite often speak about the drivers of disconnection, and one of the major drivers is a lack of time. Yet we want to take away the one Sunday—the one that is left; the one little bit that is left—that gives at least some families the time to have a longer period in which to bond and do the kinds of things that they need to do.

This bill takes that time away from our children, from our families, and from our communities. It does all that in the name of choice, of commerce, and of sales. Mr McClay bases his argument on freedom of choice, and he also bases it on Rotorua. His bill does not make a case for Rotorua only; his bill would actually take away from all of our families those things—[Interruption] The member might like to think about that, because the bill is not all about selling in Queenstown or Rotorua. If the member wants to have an exemption for Rotorua, then let him try it out. Let the member put forward an option that says we should have a referendum in Rotorua and put a 70 percent threshold on it. Let us do that, if that member agrees. But no, the chambers of commerce and business interests are to decide. I am not prepared to support a measure that takes time away from our families and our children. Thank you.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) : It seems that a bill of this nature has become something of a hardy perennial. By our count, this is something like the eighth members’ bill to come before the House since 1996 proposing to amend the shop trading hours Act. As a former owner and operator of two retail stores, I can understand, and even have some degree of sympathy for, those who would wish to open their doors for business on 1 more day of every year. The case for allowing this to happen on Easter Sunday, however, is far from compelling, and the Green MPs, collectively and individually, will be opposing the progress of this Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill. I bought my first store in 1980, which happened to be the year that Saturday trading became allowable and was introduced generally, whereas formerly retail shops for the most part were obliged to be closed from Friday evening through to Monday morning. Clearly, with more lenience some economic and social benefits have flowed from those extended opening hours. But one must get to the point where one questions how much is enough, or indeed, how much is too much. It is my view that if a business cannot be viable on the 361½ days of the year that most shops can currently legally open, then one must question whether 1 more day will really add sufficient value to that business to warrant the change.

This bill proposes to allow territorial authorities to determine by way of by-laws whether retail shops in their districts or parts of their districts may be open on Easter Sunday. This proposed by-law mechanism would not require territorial authorities to consult with their communities, as they would currently need to do under Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. Nor do the provisions of this bill propose any safeguards protecting workers from being required by their employers to work in retail shops whose management decides that they will open on Easter Sunday, other than perhaps for a few employees who may be in the position to be able to negotiate some specific arrangement into their employment agreements. Close to 270,000 people are employed in the retail sector in New Zealand, most of them on very modest rates of pay—indeed, many of them are paid scarcely above the minimum wage—so there is quite a lot at stake in this matter. In common with most low-paid workers, there is a significant discrepancy between their rights in principle and their ability in practice to exercise those rights. We have heard much about the matter of choice, but to suggest that a casual worker will have a choice of whether or not to work on Sunday is somewhat naive. The choice typically will be for the worker to turn up at work on Sunday or to not bother coming in again.

The Green Party policy is that Easter Sunday should be a public holiday, to ensure that workers who are required to work on that day receive a day off in lieu, and this issue is not addressed by the bill. Easter Sunday is one of the remaining 3½ days of the year when family life cannot be impinged upon by work commitments or a commitment to consumerism. There are, of course, already numerous exceptions to that rule: people in the service industries and in emergency services, utility operators, and others who are obliged to continue to work or to make services available on 365 days a year. However, extending that out to the entire suite of retail therapy opportunities would seem to breach quite a significant dam, as these holidays stand as quite significant symbols of resistance to a culture of unbridled consumerism and consumption. There have, unquestionably, been economic benefits from allowing longer trading hours, but so, too, have there been costs. The time available for people to engage in voluntary activity in their communities has been much reduced, and this has put pressure on schools, service clubs, and sports clubs to achieve their goals. New Zealand already has a culture of working excessively long hours: 20 percent of us work more than 50 hours a week, and 40 percent work more than 45 hours a week. We believe in enabling a much better work-life balance and in increasing opportunities for parents to spend time with their children and for people to be active in their communities. We have opposed all seven previous bills that have sought to liberalise Easter Sunday trading, and we will continue to resist this eighth attempt to breach that barrier. Thank you.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : Listening to this debate has been very interesting, but also not surprising. As soon as I saw the Shop Trading House Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill on the Order Paper with the word “choice” in the title, I thought: “Here we go. The politburo over there will all be voting in accordance with the whips’ directions.” I will be very interested to see whether any Labour members exercise their own brains, do their own thinking, and vote on this side of the Chamber, but I very much doubt it. I will be disappointed, though, if all the National members, without exception, troop through the Ayes lobby. I suspect that some National members will exercise a conscience vote. They will make up their own minds and vote No. And, surprise, surprise, the “watermelons” on my right are all voting collectively, as Mr Clendon said. They are all following the herd as well, because we cannot have choice—no, no, no. We must have the politburo laying down the rules on how it is done, headed by the former unionists over there. Some of those members should get back into the workplace. I have a lesson for them. I practised employment law—

Dr Rajen Prasad: Not very well.

DAVID GARRETT: —and it is not 1950, I say to Mr Prasad. Not every worker—and the only people who use that term now are in the Labour Party—is a family man with three kids.

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate to do this, but there is a convention in this House that members refer to other members by their correct names. My colleague sitting next to me was not referred to by his correct title of Dr Prasad; it was something else. The member has been here long enough to know that he should refer to the honourable member by his correct name or title.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is correct. The member David Garrett referred to is Dr Prasad, and in future he should refer to him by his correct title. That would be helpful.

DAVID GARRETT: Dr Prasad.

Dr Rajen Prasad: Mr Garrett.

DAVID GARRETT: Astounding! The workforce is no longer made up of dads who support three kids and go home on the 5 o’clock tram; it is made up of single people and young couples who are childless and wish to make as much money as they can for a house deposit. It is made up of students who want to work for their education. This legislation gives people choice, not just to consumers—

Darien Fenton: Rubbish!

DAVID GARRETT: Not all union members are clones who follow the leader. Some of them are, but there are many union members who will be quite happy to work an extra day. In my experience in bottle stores and in other working environments, there is often a queue to work on public holidays. If no one wants to work, employers have to pay extra. That is called the market. That is how it works. [Interruption] Those members are absolutely terrified of the market. The Opposition says: “We can’t have any choice. We must impose it from the top. We must have one rule for all.” That is how it goes at the politburo level, I say to Dr Prasad.

It just so happens that I will reveal ACT’s hand in advance. I have proxies for the other members of the ACT Party, all of whom have decided individually to support the bill, as I will. It is no surprise that over there in the politburo they are all against it. ACT is in favour of the bill. It is a measure that allows choice to both workers and consumers, and ACT is in favour of anything that does just that. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, kia ora tātau katoa e te Whare. Ko tēnei take, he take nui i te Ao Māori, otirā, he take nui hoki i te Whare Pāremata i te mea, e toru, hipa noa atu pea o tēnei momo take kua tae ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata. Arā, he kōrero mō te wā o te Aranga o Ihu Karaiti. Kāti, ko tā te Pāti Māori i tēnei wā he noho tōtara wāhi rua. Ko ētahi kai te whakaae atu ki tēnei pire, ko ētahi kei te kī, kāti engari, ko tōku ngākau kei te kī me tautoko ake i tā Todd McClay kōrero. Āe, nō roto o Rotorua te mema nei, he mema kua whakaara ake i tēnei take mō te painga o Rotorua. Nō reira mōku ake, kua tautoko i tāna i tēnei pānuitanga tuatahi.

Ko te aronga o tana ngākau, mō te āhuatanga o ngā mea tūruhi, ngā pākihi o roto i te tāone nui o Rotorua. Ko tāna i te tuatahi, ko tōna aronga e hāngai tonu ana ki a Rotorua engari ā te wā pēa, kai tēnā, kai tēna, kai tēnā tāone, kai tēnā tāone tōna tikanga. Mā rātau anō rā tērā e wetewete. Ko te mea pai o tēnei ki a au nei i te tuatahi, kai tēnā tāone, kai tēnā tāone te tikanga, ka tahi, ka rua, ka riro mā tēnā kaunihera, mā tērā hapori e whakatau, āe, kāo rānei, ka mutu, o roto i a au o Te Arawa, o Rotorua, ko te tūmanako mā Rotorua tonu e whakatau i te tikanga mō Rotorua.

Ko te mate kē o ēnei momo pire, he painga anō o roto, he kino anō rā roto. Nā, ko te wāhi o Te Aranga ki te ao Māori, he wā whānau tērā, he wā hura kōhatu, he wā whakakotahi i te whānau. Tērā kōrero tērā, ka mutu, kai te rongo ake ki ngā kōrero ā ētahi o te Reipa e mea ana, kei wareware te āhuatanga ki ngā kaimahi i roto toa. Ka mutu, ko roto o Rotorua ko te hunga me kī, e hāpai nei i te mahi tūruhi. He mea tērā mō te pūkoro o te tangata. Nō reira, kua tukituki ngā take e rua, ā, ko te āhuatanga o te whakatā, te whakakotahi nei o te whānau. Ka mutu, ko tērā e pā ana ki ngā pākihi. Kei te rongo ake i te kōrero o te Reipa, kua raruraru pea, kua herea pea ētahi o ngā kaimahi o roto i ngā mahi tūruhi. Te tikanga ā-Māori nei, kua hiahia ki te haere ki te hura kōhatu engari tērā pea, ko te rangatira kei te kī, kāo, me noho ki te mahi. Nō reira, kua āhua raruraru i reira.

Nō reira, ā kāti, kua rahi tēnei me te mōhio anō hoki kua tata ki te tina. Me pēnei rawa te kōrero, kua noho tōtara wāhi rua te Pāti Māori engāri mōku ake, kua tautoko ake i tēnei pānuitanga tuatahi anake, kia kite mai ai, kia rongo anō hoki i ngā hiahia o te hapori.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and greetings to us all, the House. This matter is of great significance to Māoridom, and to the House of Parliament as well, because there have been perhaps three or more instances in the past when a bill of this type involving the Easter break has come before Parliament. At this time, however, the Māori Party is divided. Some agree with this bill, while others disagree, but my heart tells me that I must support Todd McClay’s address. Yes, this member is from Rotorua. He raised the matter of how Rotorua will benefit from the bill. For me, personally, I will support what he has stated in this first reading debate.

While the focus of his attention is primarily on aspects of tourism and business in the city of Rotorua, eventually each individual town will decide what is best for it. They alone will determine that. For me, the good thing about this is that, first, each town will have the right; second, it will be left to each council and community to decide whether it is yes or no, but for me of Te Arawa and Rotorua, hopefully it would be left to Rotorua to determine what is best for it.

The problem with these types of bills is that there are both advantages and disadvantages in them. To Māoridom, the Easter break means family and unveiling time, and also time for the family to come together as one. That is that aspect. Hearing some Labour members saying not to forget those who work in shops is another. As well, there are those in Rotorua who champion the tourism industry. That, of course, is a source of income for the pocket. So the two purposes conflict, in respect of having time for a break and bringing the family together, and the matter relating to business. I have heard what Labour has stated about how some workers in the tourism industry become somewhat troubled or constrained. Traditionally, Māori would want to go to an unveiling, but on the other hand the employer may perhaps demand that they remain at work. So there is a dilemma.

So, leave it at that. Knowing that the dinner break is almost upon us, this is enough. I say again that the Māori Party is divided on this, but for me, personally, my support is for this first reading only, so that the wishes of the community are again seen and heard. ]

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : It is good to rise and speak in favour of the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill. It is an interesting bill. I have searched my conscience and tried to put aside ideological considerations and considerations of party politics and what the party rulebooks or constitutions might say, and get down to what works, what communities will find works, and what is good for them. It seems to me that that is exactly what this bill is about and what it does. It gives the power back to communities and to councils to do something and to exercise their judgment on whether to have shops open on Easter Sunday.

As I said in my maiden speech, I am generally socially conservative, but I do not think I am unthinkingly or uncaringly so. I also said that I think we very much need to do what works, not what sounds good in theory. I want to say in this debate—perhaps there has not been so much talk of this; it has been more unionist-type argument—that I have sympathy for the arguments based on a special time for family on special religious days, and, for example, the real significance in the Christian faith of Easter Sunday. As I also said in my maiden speech, my father is a retired Baptist minister. I am sure that I will attend an Easter service in this coming year. But I nevertheless—

Hon Tony Ryall: Son of a preacher man!

SIMON BRIDGES: I am the son of a preacher man; he was the only one who could ever teach me.

I nevertheless say to this House that although I would not accept a carte blanche liberalisation of the law—including, for example, Good Friday and Christmas Day—I think this particular bill, getting away from the ideology, offers choice and will work. Significantly, it will allow for different positions in different circumstances and localities, even within cities. In places like Tauranga, where I am privileged to be the MP, we may see Mount Maunganui open to trade, whereas other parts of the city—such as the aptly named, given this bill, Bethlehem—we may not. As I said, it is not laying down a carte blanche ideological position; it is about choice, flexibility, and differing positions in differing circumstances and locations.

In considering this bill and how to vote, I consulted with quite a number of people. I wanted to exercise my conscience and I also wanted to know what the people of Tauranga thought. I can tell members that retailers in, for example, Mount Maunganui have been influential in shaping my views. They said to me that they wholeheartedly support this bill. They said that it is still summer at Easter at the Mount, and many tourists, both domestic and international, still want to shop and get out for the crafts, the eateries, and so on. They say that of course this should be optional; it will be for both the retailers and for the customers. They say that they will make very strong efforts to be family focused and to have things for families, because not only will that be great for their businesses but also it will be good for the community to have people and families given something to do, to get out and to enjoy what Mount Maunganui’s shops and retailers have to offer.

As I said, this will be optional for customers. They can choose to go to the coffee shops and the crafts markets, or they can choose to go to church and to spend time with their families at home. I like that very much.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : I rise to speak to the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill. I find I am in an odd position in Opposition as the ex-MP for Rotorua.

Paul Quinn: Ex!

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: Yes, absolutely; I lost, Todd won, and he is bringing this bill into the House, but I always supported Easter trading. I supported it because I was the MP for a vibrant and very alive tourist diamond of New Zealand.

When I first got into Government, Rodney Hide’s bill, carried over from Patricia Schnauer, was before us, and I supported that bill too. I have to say I came in for a lot of challenges in my party at that time, and over time we changed clauses in the bill. I have heard lots of debate, including comments just now from Simon Bridges, that there are workers’ protections in this bill and that it is great that they have choice. In effect, they do not have much choice. I really believe that that is the position we are in. I put in a clause to strengthen worker protection after Rod Donald’s garden centre amendment to Easter Sunday trading, and I was very clearly shown that it did not protect workers who were coerced to work.

I really believe here and now that whatever the outcome of tonight’s debate—and I think this is the most muddled debate; I think we have debated this issue seven times in the House—the issue will not go away. It will keep coming back to the House, but I believe it has to come back as a Government bill. Government members are now in the perfect position of having the Prime Minister as the Minister of Tourism. Herein lies another hook. If workers were given the protection of Easter Sunday being made one of the annual public holidays and were given time and a half and a day in lieu, we would not be coming back to debate this issue in this House every time there is a new Parliament.

I do not believe that a member’s bill will ever really make the cut. I fought very hard for a bill such as this one, and members who were around in the last 9 years know that I did. I think I did quite a good job, but one would have thought during the election campaign that that was one of the reasons why I was an abject failure and why Rotorua would toss me out. And Todd was going to do it—he was going to come in on his white charger―

Todd McClay: A blue charger!

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: ―a blue charger; that is right—and fix it once and for all.

I wish Todd McClay good luck, because I think the debate is still very divided. Workers are saying: “You may think that you put worker protections in here, but actually there is coercion that we don’t feel comfortable with.” That is absolutely what the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the National Distribution Union have told me, and so have workers. They say that if they dare suggest that they want to have Easter Sunday off, they will be told: “There are plenty more workers in this labour market, especially in the time of a recession, and you will be down the road, sunshine.” I do not think there is adequate protection for workers in clause 10 of this bill.

Darien Fenton: Very weak.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: It is weak, and if it gets through tonight then that is one thing that the Commerce Committee, or whichever committee it goes to, will absolutely have to work on. I believe John Key has the perfect tool. He has a working party looking at the holidays now. If that came back tidied up, we would all be very relieved. We could get on with other great, noble members’ bills in this House. The way to tidy it is to do it through that working party review of the holidays we have now, make Easter Sunday a public holiday, pay people properly for it, and give them time off.

I am still the buddy MP for Rotorua, and I am still “hanging around” Todd. I support this bill, and I am proud to support it. It was just good luck that it was drawn in the ballot; it was not good management by the member for Rotorua. I wish Rotorua good luck. I have just returned from there, and the people of Rotorua are waiting to know that this House will support them and get the bill referred to a select committee. They have gone trans-Tasman, and they want to see a vibrant retail sector and a vibrant service sector. There is that hook for the service sector—pay them properly and they will be there, when they choose to work. I am pleased to speak on this bill. I am so glad I got an opportunity to do so. There is a way of fixing it.

MELISSA LEE (National) : It is a pleasure to rise to support the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill. To the former MP for Rotorua Steve Chadwick I say thank you. What a wonderful thing it is that we can work in a cross-party way. I just wish that she could convince more members from the Labour Party to vote for this bill to be referred to a select committee.

I start with a terrible quotation, which seems still to resonate with visitors who come to our shores. When they return to their home countries it is a bit of a joke to them, and it is a reputation that as a nation we have not yet dispelled. It is one of the reasons I support this member’s bill from my colleague Todd McClay, and what a fantastic member for Rotorua he is. I know that, right from the beginning, he lobbied me. He put members’ names on a huge wall in his office, and he ticked them off as he went about lobbying other members of this House. The quotation is “We went to New Zealand, but it was closed.” What a terrible quotation that is. It has been told to me many times, and it speaks volumes. However, compared with the 1980s, when I first arrived in New Zealand, things have changed quite dramatically. Retail shops are staying open for longer, and, in most cases, the streets of Auckland and other parts of New Zealand look quite vibrant, alive, and filled with people, unlike back in the early days of my arrival, when the city looked quite dull and dead after 5 o’clock.

In the last 20 years Parliament has made numerous attempts—I think about nine—to repeal this law. It is time to support this member’s bill being referred to a select committee to gauge public opinion through the submissions process, so that the people of New Zealand can have their voices heard, talk to the select committee, and decide.

For me this bill is not about whether it is right or wrong to allow people to trade on Easter Sunday. People already do. I remember when garden centres were breaking the law to trade on Easter Sunday. Since 2001 garden centres can open on Easter Sunday, but hardware stores still cannot. I know quite a few DIY mums and dads whose voices get rather loud over this issue. It is about recognising that there should be a choice, and that, through choice, the law becomes fair. Retailers and customers should have the choice to decide whether they want to trade on Easter Sunday.

And that choice should be fairly distributed across New Zealand. At the moment the current law allows shops in Queenstown and Taupō to open, but not shops in other places, including some of New Zealand’s most popular “other” destinations, like Rotorua, Mount Maunganui, and Wānaka. At the moment dairies can open, but only to sell food and household items for use on that day. My parents used to own a dairy a long time ago, and I remember working at that dairy. My parents used to feel rather guilty opening up shop on Easter Sunday. I remember my mum wondering whether she was breaking the law, because she had seen television stories about garden centres apparently defying the law to stay open, and we thought the law applied to dairies as well. There was a lot of confusion for us as migrants. We did not understand why shops had to close on Easter Sunday.

Rotorua is a key destination for Asian visitors to New Zealand, and hundreds of thousands of them come to our shores each year. Rotorua is always included in their travel itineraries. Although souvenir shops can open on Easter Sunday, many others that provide important services to our tourists face restrictions. I know that a lot of local Asian retailers in Rotorua who would benefit greatly from tourism dollars would jump for joy if they could open on Easter Sunday. It is not about forcing them to open, either; it is about having a choice. It is all about choice.

For me personally, Easter and Christmas are the two days when I make sure I am at church with my family, but after the church service the day is often spent pottering around the house doing chores. It would be good to know that if I wanted to drive down to Rotorua with my family for a wee break over Easter, I would not come back saying “I went to Rotorua but it was closed.” Having that choice would not change my life, but for those who count on a hike in the tourism dollar during peak holiday periods it could mean the difference between make or break. We need to give them a break, and give them the choice to say yea or nay. Thank you.

Lynne Pillay: Mr Assistant Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): There is one speaker left, who is the proposer of the bill in reply.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Seek leave. It will be granted.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : I seek leave to take a call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): A 5-minute call?

LYNNE PILLAY: A 5-minute call, if that is OK.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is not.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : I open my speech by thanking Gerry Brownlee. Although we do not agree—

Moana Mackey: Yeah, that’s enough.

LYNNE PILLAY: That is enough. In the interests of democracy, I thank him for allowing me to take a call on the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill.

Firstly, I acknowledge all speakers. Although I do not agree with the members on the other side of the House and the ACT speakers, I acknowledge that it is very important to have the debate on this issue. I also acknowledge Steve Chadwick and commend her for her speech, because, although I do not agree with her on this issue, I know that she has brought this issue to this House many times before. I think the last time that a similar bill to this one was before the House, a number of Labour members argued that it should go forward but that we should have in place rights and protections for the workers who work on that day.

Paul Quinn: Select committee.

LYNNE PILLAY: No, no. That bill went to a select committee, but let us get real. In terms of the numbers in this House—and they are not the numbers that we wanted—to support this bill’s referral to a select committee on the basis that there might be some worker protection and workers’ rights, given the history of this Government in dealing—

Paul Quinn: Trust us.

LYNNE PILLAY: My friend opposite says to trust those members, but we need only look at the 90-day legislation and at the cuts to KiwiSaver and the accident compensation scheme. Nicky Wagner is probably another victim of the cuts to accident compensation.

I acknowledge Steve Chadwick. I know that she supports this bill. Her view is not the one that I or many of my colleagues take, but she has the integrity to stand in this House and talk about the rights of workers in New Zealand.

Members opposite talk about choice. They talk about whether workers will sell their fourth week’s holiday because they think that it is a completely equal relationship in the workforce, do they not? It is completely equal! The employer comes in and says: “Look, by the way, I have no power over you, but would you like to sell your fourth week’s holiday, or would you like to work on a public holiday?”. It will have nothing to do with the fact that workers may want some extra leave because their child has extra needs, or whatever. Members opposite think that that is a completely equal playing field. That is where members opposite miss the plot completely.

It is not an equal power relationship. I can vouch for this, because before I came to this House, and before I worked to represent workers and to see that their rights were respected, I was a nurse. Everyone knows that the people working in hospitals and in health care are in the one area of work where we cannot tell—and I can see Gerry Brownlee nodding furiously in agreement—those people to go home. We cannot tell nurses, doctors, and midwives to go home, or say that they are not needed at the moment because the market does not need them. We know that is ensured. But when we look at the retail sector, we know that there are very few days now in our year when workers have that time with their families.

We know that, given the choice, people are very, very on to it. Retailers and consumers know that if the shops are shut on a particular day, then that day is when people can enjoy being with their families. Retail workers can also have that day off to enjoy with their families, and the shops can sell their wares on other days.

We absolutely acknowledge Steve Chadwick, who is supporting the bill, because we are very pragmatic—

Paul Quinn: And Shane, he is coming with us.

LYNNE PILLAY: It is a conscience vote; I would not know. We see—I am rather disappointed about it and I will put it on record—that the Māori Party members, who are there to advocate for workers’ interests, have chosen to split their support on this bill. But I am proud to say that I do not support this bill.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : The hour of debate before the dinner break, and now this last 20 minutes, have been interesting and I thank all members for their contributions. I start by saying, on behalf of the people of Rotorua who for 19 years have been asking this Parliament for the right to have a choice, that we respect all views in this House and of those people who have told us that they cannot support the bill. Indeed, that is why it is important that it is a conscience issue: Easter trading and particularly trading on Easter Sunday is an issue that the House has had difficulty with for many, many years and on all sides of the House there are very wide views.

I shall pick up a couple of points raised. I must, for a moment, pay a compliment to the previous member of Parliament for Rotorua, Steve Chadwick, who held the Rotorua seat for 9 years. Mrs Chadwick, on two occasions, brought a bill before this House—a member’s bill and a local bill—to deal with this issue for the people of Rotorua. I commend her for that and I thank her for pledging her support for this bill today and for the people of Rotorua. I tell members that while looking at the bill before I put it into the ballot I did a lot of research, read all the other bills, and looked at what others had tried to do. I can say that Mrs Chadwick’s bill was probably the closest to something that I thought the House would be comfortable with. Indeed, she herself has said that there are great similarities between the bill we face today and vote on and her bill.

Mrs Chadwick spoke about worker protection, and of course that is very important. I accept that workers must be protected. But I would argue to the House that the worker protection put into this bill is near-on compatible with, and identical to, that in Mrs Chadwick’s bill only a few years ago. At that time a number of Labour members saw fit to support the bill to the select committee so as to have the opportunity to debate, to listen to people from all around New Zealand from all walks of life—union members, church officials, men and women in the street, business owners, workers—and to see what they think. If there is work to be done on worker protection, then the committee is the very best place to do that.

I challenge members opposite to think for a moment about the people of Rotorua, the people of Wānaka, and the people of any other part of New Zealand where people want a choice. I ask members opposite what is wrong with backing New Zealanders to have a choice. In fact, let us go a little shorter than that and ask what is wrong with backing New Zealanders to come to this House to a select committee to put forward their views on what should happen to this bill.

Mrs Chadwick is right to say that this bill has been around for a long time, and I tell members that it will be back again. It is about local choice and backing local communities. I ask members opposite who say that they cannot support the bill to think about these Kiwis, these mums and dads, and these workers, and to listen to them. I challenge them to stop listening to the unions and to listen to the workers and allow them to put forward their views to this House. There is quite some subtle difference. A union is represented by a number of people who have paid a percentage of their salary to the union. In Rotorua, shopworkers in a number of stores pay 10 percent of their salary to the unions. If members are so worried about their rights, they should give back some of that money. They should not be taking that 10 percent and then saying they are really, really sorry that those people cannot work on a certain day.

But it is worse than that. Members are saying they do not care what workers say, they know better than workers. I ask the members opposite to back New Zealanders, and to listen to workers. If people come to Parliament and say they do not want this legislation, then the House will listen—it is a conscience issue.

I will tell members one thing about Rotorua. I have known for a long time, and Mrs Chadwick has known for a long time—in fact, I heard her echoing this earlier—that the people of Rotorua have wanted this choice for a long time. Both Mrs Chadwick and I campaigned on this, as most candidates in Rotorua have. We are both committed to working as long as we are in Parliament to bring this choice to the people of Rotorua. But I say to members that if this bill does not go to the select committee, it will be because of a lack of support and understanding for the people of Rotorua on the opposite side of the House, from Labour members who would rather listen to their unions than back people to come to this House so that, after hearing from them, we can make up our minds.

I make a pledge on behalf of the people of Rotorua that if this bill does not go to select committee, we will be back. Rotorua wants this provision and it has wanted it for a long time. But there is something that Labour members should not do in 2 years’ time. Labour members who have not supported this bill to select committee should not show up in Rotorua and ask people for their vote. It will be too late; it will be all over. People in Rotorua backed me a year ago to come to Parliament to fight for them. I will continue to fight for them. I commend Mrs Chadwick for going against the majority of her colleagues’ views on this issue by supporting this bill. But let me say on behalf of the people of Rotorua who have supported me to come here to ask Parliament for a choice, and to send this bill to select committee, that if this bill does not go to a select committee, it will be the fault of the members opposite, and they need not bother to campaign in Rotorua in 2 years’ time; there will be no place for them. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.