BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I move, That the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill be now read a third time. It gives me great pleasure to introduce the third reading of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. The Labour Party appreciates the support of the House in making sure that this bill can be considered for passing before the Christmas break.

This is the first private bill that I have introduced as a member of Parliament. The bill has its origins with my predecessor, former senior Government whip and Labour MP for Christchurch Central, Tim Barnett. It is and has been a non-controversial bill. It has been given considerable scrutiny by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and changes have been made through the select committee process that are broadly in accordance both with the wishes of the bill’s promoters—that is, the Methodist Church of New Zealand—and with the existing legislation that is specific to other such trusts and their operation.

I take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the Finance and Expenditure Committee as the bill has progressed through its stages. I also thank the Methodist Church of New Zealand, which is headquartered in my electorate of Christchurch Central, and Richard Cunliffe and Tanya Surrey, who are lawyers based in Queenstown for the law firm MACTODD and who have acted on behalf of the Methodist Church in bringing the bill to my attention.

The bill has a twofold purpose. First, it provides an alternative process to that provided under the existing legislative framework, the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, to vary charitable trusts relating to the Methodist Church. That is a cumbersome and expensive process, and this mechanism will allow the Methodist Church to make changes to trusts in a much more straightforward and cost-effective way. Secondly, the bill expands the purposes for which trusts’ funds and trusts’ properties relating to Methodist orphanages or Methodist children’s homes, as they have been held in the past, can be applied. These changes allow the Methodist Church to apply these funds and properties to provide care for children and young persons by means other than orphanages and children’s homes, which are no longer held, run, and operated by the Methodist Church.

Of the changes made in the process of the select committee considerations, a couple are worthy of particular note. One relates to clause 18, where we sought to clarify that the trust funds and properties to which Part 3 applies could be used only for charitable purposes. That amendment also removed any doubt as to whether the funds could be used for non-charitable purposes, unlikely as that might be, given that we are dealing with one of our major churches.

We also removed clause 21 and inserted a new clause 19A, to provide that trustees can be appointed or removed by the Methodist Church only after consultation with those trustees. This changed an earlier provision, under which trustees could have been removed by the annual conference of the Methodist Church. The precedent for that was based on section 20 of the Anglican Church Trusts Act. We were looking to accord the Methodists the same provisions as the Anglicans, but it was noted by the advisers to the committee that neither the Presbyterians nor the Catholics had such powers under their church trust deed Acts. So we have opted to join the Catholics and the Presbyterians rather than going with the Anglicans.

In conclusion, I again thank my colleagues on the select committee for their support. I thank the House for its support in seeing this bill back in the House prior to Christmas and, hopefully, for the conclusion of its passage forthwith.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I am also pleased to rise and take a brief call on the third reading of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. I certainly endorse and agree with everything that Brendon Burns, the member who spoke before me, has said about the bill. Considering a bill like this is one of the many occasions when this House acts in a very multipartisan and supportive fashion. It is one of those opportunities when select committees come at a bill strictly on its merits and without any political overtones, and that makes it a very enjoyable process to work through.

The bill really is a case study of a lot of what we do in the House, which is working out where to draw the line so that people are given a path through what needs to be done, in a way that properly protects third parties, but, at the same time, ensures that it is no more onerous than it needs to be. The discussion we had at the select committee on this bill was very much along those lines. As Mr Burns has said, the Methodist Church found that it had a number of obsolete trusts gifted to it for various purposes that could no longer be carried out. It could have gone through the very long and expensive Charitable Trusts Act amendment process, but sought instead to come to the House, as other churches have done before it, to seek a streamlined process to allow that to be done without gobbling up too much of the money that had been left for charitable purposes. We certainly want to support the Church in that endeavour. All that was left for our committee to do was to ensure that it was done in the most appropriate way.

I want to pick up on two changes that the committee suggested and discuss them further. The first of those concerns the oversight of the Attorney-General. The bill, as it came to us after the first reading, suggested that most, but not all, of the amendments that the Methodist Church might make would go before the Attorney-General to make sure that there was a final level of objective oversight. We felt it was appropriate that all changes should have that oversight. The Church indicated that it did not have any issue with that, and saw very few cases where that would not happen anyway. But, again, I think it is an important step for us to ensure that there would be no situation where a change could be made without some sort of objective oversight on behalf of the House. I think that is a good change.

The final change, which Mr Burns referred to, was to omit what was clause 21 and insert its contents, changing the wording slightly, as a part of new clause 19A. The movement from clause 21 to clause 19A is more significant than the numbering itself suggests. It brought the clause out of Part 4 and inserted it into Part 3 of the Act. The change means that instead of the Methodist Church having the power to amend, appoint, and remove trustees of any trust that the Church is involved with, it makes sure that that power, which is a very important and significant power in trust law, is limited to the sorts of trusts that the Church has brought before us as problem trusts; that is, trusts that the Church needs to get into, tidy up, and fix in an efficient way, because the purposes are no longer practicable to be carried out. In that sphere, we had no problem with the Church having that power. The committee did feel, though, that it was too wide to give the Church an overarching power across any and all trusts it may be involved with. We made sure it had the power in respect of the trusts it had presented to us. I think the change is an important one.

I think the bill is now in a good state. We have certainly always supported the objective of the bill on the Government side of the House. I thank Mr Burns for bringing the bill and for his role in sponsoring it, and I thank my fellow committee members for working very constructively on it. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) : Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. Today is a great day. I feel particularly proud and, as Labour’s spokesperson for interfaith dialogue, I am quite humbled and privileged to stand to speak on the third reading of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. This is a time to reflect on Christmas and the Methodist Church’s generosity in giving.

First of all, I acknowledge the visionaries behind the bill, the members of the Methodist Church of New Zealand, Te Haahi Weteriana o Aotearoa, and, in Samoan, the Lotu Metotisi o Niu Sila. I acknowledge the huge contribution that the churches make—in this particular instance, the Methodist Church—because, essentially, this bill is about pastoral care. The second person whom I acknowledge is the bill’s sponsor, my colleague and respected friend Brendon Burns, Labour MP for Christchurch Central, who has given his unconditional commitment to the bill. I thank Brendon for the sterling work that he has done on this bill. Thirdly, I acknowledge the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who worked on the technical details of the bill. Fourthly, I acknowledge the most vulnerable, who will benefit incredibly from the generosity of this legislation; the Methodist Church of New Zealand; and all of the people who have committed to it.

Brendon Burns and Amy Adams have already talked to the technical points in respect of the law in the third reading, but I stand to take a call to acknowledge the huge contribution that the Methodist Church makes. From the latest census data, we know that it is the fifth largest Christian denomination in New Zealand. I acknowledge the 53 Methodist Church communities around New Zealand, and the pastoral care and the support that they give to the most vulnerable through food banks, through supporting children and young people, families, and the elderly, and through a lot of the op shops operated by the Methodist Church.

I say today particularly—and I reflect on a former Prime Minister of New Zealand, David Lange, who was a Methodist—that the many values and principles the Church displays with regard to looking after others and those most in need are to be cherished. I feel very privileged to be part of a historic moment, acknowledging the wonderful contribution the Methodist Church makes, in supporting the third reading of this wonderful bill.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I rise to take a short call on the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. The Green Party will support the bill, and we acknowledge the work of Brendon Burns in bringing it to the House. As my colleague Kevin Hague said in his first reading speech, an Act of Parliament should not be necessary to modernise and regulate the workings of the Methodist Church trusts, but, given the lack of progress in respect of updating the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, it is necessary. The Methodist Church is entitled to due process in order to allow the trusts to function, and it needs to have the ability to vary the foundation deeds of an organisation that first began its journey in Aotearoa in 1822. I have always been suspicious of the three Ms of colonisation: missionaries, the military, and mass migration.

Hon Mita Ririnui: Māori!

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Ha, ha! It is clear from the recorded history of the Methodist Church that it has a long association with tangata whenua and recognises the paramount importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The Methodist Church today is a diverse church with a Treaty base, a strong recognition of Pasifika peoples, multicultural goals, and interesting traditions of supporting communities. The Greens are aware of many organisations that have benefited from its generosity and community support, and we are happy to see the Church become able to change its administrative framework, as other churches have done in order to function under more appropriate and modern terms. Like my colleague Kevin Hague, my reservation about the tradition of charity is no reflection on the often highly strategic support the Methodist Church has given to social services and projects for social well-being.

My reservation about charity stems from a new rhetoric in the community and voluntary sector, which is classically displayed in the latest copy of the Ministry of Social Development magazine Rise, where giving and philanthropy is elevated to a very high status, and having less money or a less well-paid job is rationalised through a rhetoric of saintly generosity and warm feelings that come from giving up a living wage. As a lifelong volunteer, I by no means belittle the generosity of spirit that basically runs our world. But I am suspicious of the new language around charity. Charity usually requires gratitude and will be available only to the deserving poor when the State steps back and encourages churches and charitable trusts to step into the breaches. Will the community and voluntary sector, including the churches, embrace the new rhetoric of support for the deserving poor? Will it cheer on Kevin Rudd as he requires bad beneficiaries’ money to be managed by social services and Government agencies that will decide when they can eat and what they can eat? This sounds ludicrous, but imitating Australia seems to be very popular here at the moment. There is little power for the recipients of charity.

Although we are supporting this bill for its practical intent, I quote the Queensland indigenous activist in the 1970s on the subject of charity who said: “If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” That challenge is for the Methodist Church, but, even more, it is for this House in dealing with both minor and major legislation intended to strengthen justice for all. We commend Brendon Burns for his effort and we support the bill. Kia ora.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : I am pleased to stand to respond to the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. In essence, this bill is about changing with the times. The bill aims to provide an appropriate mechanism for varying charitable trusts of the Methodist Church where the original objectives or purposes are now impossible, impractical, or inexpedient to carry out. Heaven forbid that Parliament would stand in the way of the Church and its determination that any course of action would be impossible, impractical, or inexpedient. On any level, it simply does not make any sense. But even more so for the Methodists. If we recall the origins of this Church in the mid-1700s, it was the fact that the movement emerged from a group of students who sought to order their lives methodically, to meet regularly for prayer and the study of the Scriptures. So when the Methodists tell us their trust provisions are no longer practicable, we would do well to listen.

But there is another, even more noble reason for being pleased to speak to this bill today. If we think of the broader Methodist ethos from its first days in Aotearoa, we see that it has been about a focus on social justice. Early Methodists campaigned against slavery, they fought for prison reform, and they advocated initiatives to improve literacy and health. The Methodist movement has been active in New Zealand, speaking out against the sin of sweated labour, racism, sexism, human rights abuses, unfair trading practices, Third World debt, environmental pollution, and other aspects. In my own electorate of Te Tai Tonga, Methodists have been responding to many of the social service needs of the community since their arrival in our rohe. They have run orphanages and aged-care homes. They have moved to providing early learning, adult learning, and youth training centres. They run programmes for community social workers, and provide advocacy and support. I want to acknowledge Te Haahi Weteriana o Aotearoa for the work that it has done in supporting those New Zealanders who are more vulnerable than others.

I also want to acknowledge the initiative it has taken in trying to give life to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Methodist Church describes itself as a Treaty-based Church, expressing its governance in a bicultural power-sharing partnership between te taha Māori and tauiwi. Since 1973 Māori Methodism has been largely autonomous. Tangata whenua guide the Church, through te taha Māori, to understand exactly what a power-sharing partnership consists of.

All of this background is a vital preamble to this third reading of the bill. This is an organisation that is truly trying to do its best by New Zealanders, and in particular it is seeking to make amendments to enable the Church to provide more relevant and appropriate care for children and young people. The board is wanting to adopt simpler and more cost-effective provisions than those set out in the Charitable Trusts Act. It is also looking to use the trust funds or trust property for the broader purpose of the welfare of children in New Zealand.

I am also aware of the recent information that showed that the number of families needing special grants to pay for school uniforms, stationery, exam fees, and compulsory fees has soared in the past year. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that some 240,000 children live in families that do not qualify for the additional help given to others in the form of the in-work tax credit.

To bring all these points together: we have an organisation, the Methodist Church, that wants to improve upon its current provisions, in order to meet the needs of some of the more vulnerable citizens across our community; we have another organisation, the Child Poverty Action Group, that tells us that for many thousands of children in this land there are day-to-day difficulties that cause them to struggle with the capacity to live a decent life; and we have another organisation, the Māori Party, which is dedicated to advancing social justice, to eliminating poverty, and to the pursuit of whānau ora. We believe that the intentions of the Methodist Church are honourable ones, and we are happy to support this bill to enable the Church to fulfil its aspirations without hindrance. Kia ora.

• Bill read a third time.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I move, That the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for its consideration. New Zealanders are generous people. We all recognise the important work that so many charitable organisations do to help the vulnerable in our communities.

I am sure that, like me, many members of this House have spent countless hours standing on busy street corners collecting money or helping out at fund-raising events. We do this willingly, and we are happy to play a small part in contributing to the wonderful work that our charities do. Charities Commission data indicates that there are more than 23,000 registered charities in New Zealand, and in the last year the sector had an estimated total income of around $10.4 billion, $2.4 billion of which came from donations.

If there is a threat to this sector, it is that New Zealanders have increasingly begun to show concerns about how much of the money they give gets to those it is intended for. Recent media reports have highlighted that it is not uncommon for professional telemarketing and street-collecting firms, which are used by many charities, to retain 75 percent of what they collect, and even up to 90 percent. Although there is unquestionably a cost to raising funds, the rights of consumers to be given accurate information must not be forgotten.

Just yesterday in the Press, the “cynical marketing” award for the year was given by one commentator to the Epilepsy Foundation for reportedly raising $2.8 million in donations, of which only $70,000 went to people with epilepsy. Whilst shocking, that story is by no means an isolated event. Stories like that have, in my view, damaged the fund-raising industry and severely shaken confidence in charitable giving. Many people have spoken to me of the reluctance they now have to respond to various forms of fund-raising as they feel they cannot tell the ethical from the disreputable.

It is my hope that this bill and the debate and discussion that will come from it will help to draw a clear line between worthwhile and ethical charitable collection and the insidious practice of using the name of a charity to make a significant personal profit while passing on only a tiny portion of the donation, and all the while leaving the generous consumer completely in the dark.

I am aware that part of the issue of consumer confidence in this regard involves charities’ internal use of funds, and some of the public debate has certainly focused on that. This bill deliberately does not seek to address that matter. Charitable organisations are regulated under the Charities Act and are subject to full financial disclosure rules, meaning that there is already a process for public scrutiny of how their money it spent. On that point, I wish to say that we must recognise that charities will, quite appropriately, have administration and fund-raising costs as part of providing services, and those costs will vary depending on the scale and work of each charity. No one should be put off donating for that reason alone when the costs are at an appropriate level.

Where fund-raising is carried out by the charity directly, all costs associated with that fund-raising will be disclosed as part of the charity’s financial statements. However, if a third-party business is engaged to do that work, then no record of the amount retained by that company will be available for public scrutiny.

I was moved to create this bill out of a fundamental belief that to ask for a donation to a charity without mentioning that one is not part of that charity but comes from a private company, and without mentioning that the vast majority of what is donated will never make it to that charity, is simply deceptive and wrong. Of course companies can charge for services they provide, and I have no issue with the existence of a professional fund-raising sector, but it is my view that their activities must be carried out ethically to ensure that consumers are not misled.

It is not OK to withhold information simply because providing that information would mean that someone does not get the outcome he or she wanted. So I am unmoved by arguments that a disclosure requirement would mean that less money is raised. This sector must consider the rights of hard-working New Zealanders who are parting with their cash. Donors have the right to know how much of their money will go to the charity they are being asked to donate to.

In creating this bill, I have sought to highlight an issue that I believe needs to be addressed. Since the bill has been announced, everyone I have spoken with about it, including many, many donors and a number of charities, have, without exception, agreed that the problem exists and that it must be addressed.

Where there have been reservations—and there have been only a few—they are focused solely on the issue of what the best method of dealing with it is. The Fundraising Institute of New Zealand, which represents this sector, has expressed to me a view that the answer should come from industry self-regulation, and I believe it is appropriate for me to acknowledge that the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, the Hon Tariana Turia, has let me know that her view is that although she supports the bill’s objectives, she believes that the industry should be given time to see whether self-regulation can be effective.

At this stage, I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Minister of Consumer Affairs, the Hon Heather Roy, who has been very supportive of the goals of the bill from the outset and who has, along with her officials, assisted me greatly in this process. I would also like to acknowledge my colleague Aaron Gilmore, with whom I had some helpful initial discussions around the formation of the bill.

As I have already noted, because the use of all funds within charities is already controlled under the Charities Act, this bill seeks to address only that portion of the process from the time the funds are solicited to the time the funds pass into the charity. That is the domain of professional fund-raising firms that carry out this work as a profit-making enterprise. At this stage I should make it very clear that the bill will impose no restrictions on any fund-raising activities that a charity carries out directly through the use of its own employees or volunteers.

Through this bill I am particularly seeking to target professional telemarketing firms and the so-called “chuggers”, or “charity muggers”, who approach and sometimes hassle passers-by on a busy street to donate regularly to a charity. I think few people realise that in fact those “chuggers” do not come from the charity but are paid on a commission basis of up to 90 percent of the funds collected in the first year.

As the bill stands, it has been drafted to provide a two-tier threshold of disclosure on third-party collectors who solicit funds in the course of trade, so that if they are to retain more than 20 percent of any donation, there will be a positive requirement to disclose that a portion is to be retained by way of fees. If the retention is to be greater than 50 percent, then the actual percentage to be retained must be stated before a donation can be accepted. Donations of less than $20 made in person and by way of cash will be exempt in order to minimise confusion in small-scale street collections. I acknowledge that the obligation on those seeking to keep more than half the funds is onerous, but I believe it is also appropriate and right that consumers should be made aware of that circumstance before parting with their hard-earned cash.

I look forward to a comprehensive discussion at the select committee on the mechanics of the bill, and an exploration of any and all other suggested ways to control the reprehensible aspects of the sector. I would like to make it clear at this stage that I am quite open as to the form that the actual requirements should take, where any thresholds are set, and how various activities should be defined. The fundamental issue for me, and the test I will use to assess any proposals that come before the select committee, is: “Is that fair on those who are donating?”.

May I say at this point that one of the central motivations for me in this process has been to restore and protect confidence in those charities and fund-raisers that run highly ethical and appropriate campaigns. As we often see, cowboys in an industry ruin the reputation of the whole industry. Through forcing disclosure of improper practices, it is my hope that the many excellent and worthwhile fund-raising campaigns will not suffer from being tarred with the brush of disreputability. It seems to me that there is also the role of educating the public that direct giving is always preferable and that there is, in particular, the ability to take advantage of some of the initiatives this House has created this year, such as payroll giving—and just last night we saw the exemption from gift duty that will be created for charitable giving.

In essence this bill is about protecting consumers and restoring confidence in the sector of charitable giving through enhanced transparency, and I hope to see full engagement of the sector in the select committee process. I look forward to hearing the remainder of the debate this afternoon, and I ask other parties in the House for their support at this first reading stage so that this important issue can be examined in full at the select committee. Thank you.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) : I rise to speak in support of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill 2009—a member’s bill in the name of Amy Adams. As Labour’s consumer affairs spokesperson it gives me pleasure to support this bill. We agree very much with the aims of the bill, which are to provide increased transparency and public accountability for professional third-party collectors who are in the business of collecting funds on behalf of registered charities. Like Ms Adams I recognise the very important contribution that those charities make to our country and overseas, and I recognise the very hard environment that they operate in, particularly in tough economic times like those we face now.

As I have said, Labour supports this bill’s referral to select committee, and will look forward to discussing the mechanics of it and perhaps some of its definitions. It is a good bill and it addresses an area of concern for the public, and that is why we are supporting it. Currently, damage is being done to the non-profitable and charitable sector by what have been referred to as the “charity cowboys”. That is what the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand has called some of the third-party professional collectors. We do not want to see the very many reputable organisations that are providing the overwhelming amount of what is collected to the people they are aiming to help being damaged by these cowboys.

It begs the question of why this is not a Government bill, because there is widespread concern about this issue. I note that all the Government is prepared to do in this space is direct “the Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector to offer support to the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand as it develops its fundraising Standards”. Those are the words of Tariana Turia in a speech made to the Charities Commission just recently. The bill recognises the right of people to know where their hard-earned money will go, whether it is going to the charity of their choice or to the profit-making third-party collectors, and that is important.

The bill is consistent with very sound consumer principles such as transparency and informed choice. People will be able to decide whether they want to give to charities where a significant portion of what they are giving is being retained by third-party collectors. We also need to see a Minister of Consumer Affairs who is addressing matters that are important to consumers. There are many important matters on which consumers need to see action, and, frankly, they are not. Such areas include improving consumer knowledge and protection, especially given that the consequences of bad decisions and rip-offs are more significant in tough economic times, when people are already struggling to make ends meet.

We also need to recognise the needs of vulnerable consumers, those who are poor or have low literacy or low levels of English, and our elderly and our young people. We need to improve services and information that targets them, including, I believe, access to advocacy. We need to see action on targeting exploitation. Here I am thinking particularly of loan sharks and truck shops. As Labour’s consumer affairs spokesperson, members will be seeing action from me in these areas, because these people are specifically and systematically targeting low-income people who cannot afford the sorts of rip-offs that they are promoting.

We need to see continuing updating of our consumer law to take account of changing relationships: for example, online selling. We certainly need to recognise, and this is where I think Ms Adams’ bill is so important, that an increasing number of consumers desire to spend their money or invest in things in an ethical and sustainable way, and to use their consumer choices effectively. I think this bill is part of that. We want to see more action in the area of consumer affairs, and at the moment we are not seeing a great deal from the Minister of Consumer Affairs.

As to the specifics of the bill, as I said at the start of my speech, it aims to improve transparency and disclosure to the public. Currently there are no rules on what has to be disclosed, except that no misleading or deceptive statements may be made, as is clearly outlined under the Fair Trading Act. The bill will require professional third-party collectors to disclose to potential donors that a portion of the donation will be retained by the collector, and that will apply only, as Ms Adams has outlined, if the proportion retained is more than 20 percent. This does not apply if the donation is less than $20 and made by cash only.

I think it interesting that a distinction has been made between the proportion retained between 20 and 50 percent, which will mean that the collectors have to simply disclose that a portion is being retained and withheld by them, but not the amount, and, where the proportion retained is more than 50 percent, the collectors will have to disclose, to the nearest percentage point, what percentage is being retained. I think that is a matter that should be discussed in the select committee. I do not quite know what the reasoning is behind that distinction, and I think that in lots of ways 20 percent is a pretty significant amount to be retaining. Perhaps the answer is to make it a requirement to disclose for any amount over 20 percent what proportion is being retained.

Public accountability is really important in the credibility of our charity and voluntary sector. It is important to give people the confidence to donate. We need people to donate to support organisations. As has already been mentioned, many of the MPs in this Chamber take part in collecting for charity, and we want to know that these are reputable organisations and that the money is going where the need is.

There are a few examples I want to raise. The one that Ms Adams raised concerned Epilepsy New Zealand. Again, I think it is pretty appalling so I will put that on the record as well: $2.82 million was gathered in donations, through telemarketing, and approximately $2.1 million of that went straight back to the telemarketers. In other words, $70,000 went to Epilepsy New Zealand. That was described by the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand as absolutely scandalous, and I agree; 2.5 percent of what was collected actually went to where people thought they were giving the money. The recent telethon on TV3, for the benefit of KidsCan Charitable Trust, was also in the spotlight for claims that less than 20 percent of the money raised was being passed through to the disadvantaged children that KidsCan Charitable Trust was actually collecting for. The trust has recently announced that, in fact, 80 percent was passed through to the disadvantaged children but I think a bill like this one would make sure that there was not that uncertainty and that there was not any room for people arguing that the money was not going where it should be.

The show on Television New Zealand (TVNZ) that I think is going to be canned, and it is a shame that Mr Hide is not in the Chamber because we all recollect his performance on it—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Order!

CAROL BEAUMONT: I am sorry; excuse me. I know I cannot comment on the fact. I was merely reflecting on how we enjoyed his performance.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member cannot refer to the absence of any member from the Chamber, and the member should not be trying to relitigate after I have already cautioned her.

CAROL BEAUMONT: I am very sorry. As I was saying, TVNZ’s show Dancing with the Stars was also caught up in controversy not just because Rodney Hide was dancing on it but also because only 60 percent of the money raised by it actually made it to the recipients. So probably hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders donated to that show, but only 60 percent of the money raised actually went to the recipients that people were fund-raising for.

These examples show the need for this bill. As I have already mentioned, there are probably some areas we could debate in the select committee. Again, on behalf of Labour I congratulate Amy Adams on this bill. I will finish by saying that the important thing here is that this bill means we support those genuine organisations that are doing the right thing and are supporting the people who need that support. We do not want to see the reputations of those organisations undermined by some of the examples I have just given. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The next speaker will be Katrina Shanks. Before she begins, I say to members that we are having 5-minute calls, with a 1-minute bell.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : It is my pleasure to take a call on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. First of all, I acknowledge the hard work that Amy Adams, the MP for Selwyn, has put into this bill. It takes a fair bit of effort to get a member’s bill into the House, so I congratulate her on the effort she has put in for such a worthy cause. There are no greater causes than charities and the work that they do to support the most vulnerable and needy people in our society. I found it interesting when I was listening to Amy Adams give her speech, because I did not realise that there are over 23,000 registered charities in New Zealand and that an estimated total income of about $10.4 billion goes into those charities, which is very, very significant. Of that, $2.4 billion comes from donations. That is fairly significant. We are talking about a big amount of money—$2.4 billion—that comes from donations. That is huge.

Many of us in this House do a lot of work for charities. Not only do we fund-raise in terms of the Parliamentary Rugby Team and the netball team, which I coach with Moana Mackey, but also we do a lot of work for charities by going around New Zealand, raising money, and donating it to a good cause. Many of us in the House also stand with buckets on the corners of busy streets for long periods of time to raise money for causes and to raise their profiles. We do that to give those charities a bit more visibility than they would normally have, especially when we advertise where we will be, what we will do, and what we are supporting that week. It raises their profile just a little bit more. I think that every member in this House does a fair bit towards charities. It is good to see that this bill will not affect the work we do in terms of going out there to hold our buckets, because the volunteers in the street give a heart to communities as well. This bill will not affect the heart with which that money is given. When people walking by put their $10 in the bucket, they will not be affected either.

When we talk about charities, it is important that charities have transparency and public accountability about how they raise their money, because people give out of the goodness of their hearts. Transparency and public accountability is especially important for those charities that do not use employees or direct-marketing but use a third party to raise money. Telemarketers do a lot of good work for those charities, but, unfortunately, they also come at a cost. This legislation, which will go to a select committee, will add some transparency and accountability into that process. In doing that, we hope it will restore confidence to the public when they donate money, so that they know how much money is going to the charity and how much money is going to the third party that is helping to raise that money.

When we look at some of the specifics in the bill, it is interesting to note that a third party collector means someone who is not an employee and who acts in the course of professional trade on behalf of a charitable entity. That is important, because we do not want to catch the real employees and the charities within this provision but just the third parties, in order to get transparency in this process. There have been many sad stories of big charities raising money and not a lot of it actually going to those charities. This bill will help that situation. Hopefully, it will encourage more people to give money to charities, and they will not be as sceptical about whether the money will actually go to the charity.

Many of us do the Relay for Life. We run around, and when we ask people for money, we hear them saying that not much of the money collected goes to people with cancer. But, actually, it does, so it is good that we will get some transparency in this area. It is my pleasure to support this bill’s referral to a select committee, where members can have a very good, robust debate on some of the clauses in this bill. Thank you.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) : I am also pleased to take a call in support of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. In doing that, I acknowledge Miss Adams’ work on this and also her good fortune in having it pulled out of the ballot—and that is to her credit.

It is a shame that it is not a Government bill, because the issue is important. But, having said that, it is important that the bill is here, and it is important that it will be going on its way to a select committee, where the really important questions will be raised. The select committee hearings will be an opportunity to acknowledge the work of the voluntary sector and the many people who, day in and day out, do this work for us. I do not think our social welfare system, our child welfare system, our alms-giving system, and our system of community support could function without these agencies, which simply front up to do a great job in our communities. Our communities would not survive, and I do not even think that much of our welfare system would survive without them, because there is a very close and important relationship between these agencies and Government services.

The range of these agencies is very broad. There are services for children, services for families, and support services for the disability sector. There are people out there who rely on the small amounts of money they get from other people’s giving. Many of those who give are poor people, as well. There are services for the aged. A number of agencies are out there doing work with this particular sector, and they do it with love and affection, in a very selfless way.

I will also mention the refugee settlement sector and the voluntary agencies out there doing this work, funded by charitable trusts, which do a great job. These agencies are the really tireless workers for us and for our community, and they give so generously. They really rely on something that is ingrained, if you like, in the New Zealand personality, and that is this notion of giving. The resources they get, by and large, to do their work come from the generous giving of New Zealanders.

I regret, though, if I may say, that these groups rely too much on contributions from voluntary funds and that the State sector does not fund them enough. But that is a debate for a different forum. There can be another discussion about the balance between what the State provides and what voluntary agencies do. In my days as a practitioner, when these agencies were really having difficulty, I remember that they would often say “Let’s have cake stalls to buy our Skyhawks!”. We all remember seeing those signs, yet these people do not do that. The people who stand on street corners with buckets, and those who call for funds, are the ones who bring in the funds to support this sector. Those people call on a very important aspect of the New Zealand psyche, and that is in giving. I think we do it well.

Therefore, it is totally heartbreaking to receive the reports that we have seen in the recent period about the very small percentage of the funds gathered that actually get through to this sector. It is heartbreaking. I must admit that I was amazed when I read some of the figures and I read the amount that telemarketers and others were taking. It is important, therefore, that we regulate the sector to the extent that is possible, without killing off both the collecting as well as the giving behaviour of New Zealanders. That is important.

There are cases that other members have mentioned, so I will not mention them. I turn to the bill itself. Amy Adams is right in focusing on transparency and disclosure, and that has an important value. But I do have some difficulties about the percentages, and I hope the select committee will visit that issue. I agree with my colleague Ms Beaumont that 20 percent is still a lot of money. If someone collects $10,000, then a big chunk of that is gone, with people not knowing that that will happen. I think we should have a general culture of disclosure, without stopping those who collect in small ways, like the collectors on the street who collect the smaller amounts of 10c or a dollar. Thank you very much.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) : I am very pleased to continue the generally very agreeable nature of the debate that has been occurring on these last couple of bills, and the Greens will be supporting the progress of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill to the Commerce Committee. We have some minor reservations but, overall, it seems to be a very, very timely measure, for at least two reasons. The first is that we indeed need to protect charities against falling victim to unscrupulous commission agents and, perhaps more important, we need to maintain public confidence that the money they donate will be substantially committed to the charitable purpose for which it is intended, with only a modest and clearly indicated percentage being retained to meet the reasonable costs of collection, or the commission. We have already heard some examples of the untenable rates of retention, and I think “extortionate” would not be too hard a word to use about some of those examples.

It is clear that charities of all sorts have not escaped the effects of the global recession. It has become much harder for organisations to raise funds for whatever purpose, and competition for that diminishing resource can become intense. There are now over 23,000 charities registered with the Charities Commission, both small and large, and according to the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand larger charities with very strong brands are tending to become larger while smaller charities are tending to move in the opposite direction, getting squeezed out. Indeed, they are struggling to survive, making them much more vulnerable to the depredations of some of these much less scrupulous organisations that might offer them service.

I was fortunate recently to be invited to the celebration of the reopening of a Plunket room in Sandringham, after the group had lost its building to an arson attack some 2 years earlier. The local community did an extraordinarily good job of, first, extracting some $200,000 from the local council, and, second, raising a similar amount in both cash and kind through their own efforts, all the while project managing the construction of what is now a superb facility that will serve that community for many years. The success of that particular venture was testimony not only to the hard work and perseverance of that community but also to the fact that they were part of a national organisation, and that they counted among their number people with high-level professional and other expertise. This sort of expert professionalism is not always available to charity groups. Although they may have a deep and broad knowledge of the sector they are serving, they may not be astute in contracting or managing professional or other assistance. So they, along with donors, are the most at risk from unreasonably high retention rates from organisations that can be fairly described as little more than rip-off artists.

This bill proposes to amend the Fair Trading Act to require professional third-party collectors to disclose to potential donors that a proportion of the donation will be retained, and this will apply if the proportion retained is more than 20 percent. It goes on to suggest that if the proportion retained is between 20 and 50 percent of the total donation, then the collector must simply disclose that a portion has been withheld by them but does not have to disclose the amount. If the proportion retained is more than 50 percent, then the collector must disclose the percentage being retained. In common with an earlier speaker the Greens are somewhat sceptical—we question whether those threshold levels are appropriate—but we are very happy to wait and see what submissions come to the select committee and what evidence there is to suggest that those thresholds are appropriate, or, indeed, to set some other level.

So with that aside, we do look forward to this bill progressing. We compliment the member who has presented it. Kia ora.

Hon HEATHER ROY (Minister of Consumer Affairs) : I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the first reading of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. ACT is very pleased to support this excellent bill.

It is always of great concern when consumers are being misled, and this can be the case when a charity uses a third party to solicit donations on its behalf. According to recent media reports, most individuals who donate money believe that most of their donation will be used to fund the activities of the charity concerned. What they do not realise, often, is that a proportion of their donation can be used to pay for the third party’s services. Although the use of third-party collectors or agencies to solicit donations is neither illegal nor dishonest, it can be misleading. Amy Adams’ bill attempts to improve the transparency of these transactions and ensure that people are aware of what happens to their donation. Mrs Adams should certainly be congratulated on this initiative.

As others have said, the legislation that is currently in place to ensure that consumers are not misled is the Fair Trading Act. Mrs Adams’ bill will add provisions to the Fair Trading Act’s unfair practices section that will require charities to disclose the portion of the donation to be kept by the collector when that portion is over 20 percent. Other speakers have already mentioned the thresholds.

As Minister of Consumer Affairs I have initiated a project called One Law—One Door, which is a simplification programme for consumer law with a goal of principle-based consumer supplier legislation that will see rationalisation of the 12 consumer laws that currently exist. Carol Beaumont might think this is nothing but, in fact, I spoke to a group of stakeholders last week and they signalled that this programme was the most significant thing that had happened in consumer law for quite some time—indeed, for many years. Clearly, Labour members do not think that regulatory form and having legislation that is clear, enforced, and enforceable is important at all, but I assure them that it is.

The Fair Trading Act, of course, is the pivotal legislation in my One Law—One Door project. For this reason the introduction of Mrs Adams’ amendment bill is very timely. The long-term view is for an enhanced Fair Trading Act that incorporates as many of the aspects of other consumer legislation as possible, as well as additional enforcement tools that have been identified. That is something, it seems to me, that the Labour Party talks about quite often.

Together with Mrs Adams we have discussed the interface between One Law—One Door and this amendment bill. Our conclusion is that there is merit in the proposed bill being absorbed into the One Law—One Door project and considered within the new approach to consumer law. So that should satisfy Mr Prasad’s concern that this bill is not a Government bill. In fact, it is a very good initiative from Mrs Adams and will be incorporated by the Government.

ACT supports the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill to progress to the Commerce Committee with a view to it becoming part of the One Law—One Door review, after the public submission process is complete. The ACT Party not only supports this bill but commends Amy Adams for her work in ensuring that consumers are well informed and that charitable giving is transparent. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I congratulate Amy Adams on putting the bill forward; ka nui te mihi. There is an old saying by a great Te Arawa person that goes something like this: charity begins at home.

Hon Darren Hughes: I thought it was Hone Harawira.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: That one is: charity stays at home. I absolutely agree that it is along the lines of recognising that famous saying from that famous Te Arawa person that, ultimately, charity, manaakitanga, demonstrated through the expression of aroha, hospitality, generosity, and mutual respect, is an important part of the New Zealand culture. It is also about whanaungatanga: understanding our interdependence with each other, and recognising that people are our wealth. It is about kotahitanga: doing our bit to contribute to the collective well-being.

The acts of charity that this bill addresses are, however, outside of the home. We are instead talking about the small to medium sized organisations that tend to employ third-party fund-raising professionals. We are talking about Barnardos New Zealand, with a total income of $53 million coming in from general donations and another $53 million from parental contributions. We are talking about Plunket, with an income for core child health services close to $39 million. We are talking about St John Ambulance, with revenue of up to $150 million from the rendering of services, with an additional $19 million from donations, bequests, and grants. These are just three of over 23,000 charities registered with the Charities Commission. These are sizable amounts of funding that we are talking about, and, as such, we believe it is essential that the public has confidence in the transparency and the accountability of the charitable organisations they support.

Other speakers have already mentioned that the bill is a response to the recent media interest in charities where a significant amount of fund-raised income has been spent on the fund-raisers. Basically, the bill requires professional third-party collectors to disclose to potential donors that a proportion of the donation will be retained by the collector. This, as other speakers have said, applies only if the proportion retained is more than 20 percent.

The hub of the issue for the Māori Party is that although the proposed amendment to the Fair Trading Act may be helpful and would provide some transparency, it does not assist donors to distinguish between different types of fund-raising and the associated costs or require disclosure from charities that employ fund-raisers. Most important, we in the Māori Party believe that the bill is premature. We have of course had the privilege of being able to consult the very fine Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector—

Amy Adams: Excellent Minister.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: —an excellent Minister, from an excellent party—about this bill. We have become aware of the capability—

Hon Darren Hughes: She’s not Labour.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Thank goodness! We have become aware of the capability and awareness within the fund-raising sector itself and that there are some legitimate issues about the regulation of the sector from within. As I said, we have been fortunate to have input from a fine Minister.

We know, too, that the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand is currently drafting industry standards for its members, to supplement its existing codes of ethics and conduct, and these are very positive steps. Having standards in place will help to set firm guidelines for fund-raisers and the public about what is acceptable practice. We hope that as a result of such a move we are likely to see improved practice and the restoration of donor confidence.

There is, however, a risk that although the cost of compliance might be minor, some fund-raisers might not be prepared to continue to fund-raise for charities, and that is a big concern for us. The groups I referred to before, and the 23,000 other groups, do not deserve to be punished by one bad apple in the bag. Quite to the contrary, we should all be doing what we can to support those vital services that are in many respects the heart-line of our communities.

The Māori Party is prepared to let this bill go to the Commerce Committee to hear what the community and the voluntary sector have to say about it. But we do so, I have to say, with some reluctance. The last thing we want is to pile even more work on to a sector that is already flooded with more than enough paperwork to deal with. We have confidence in both the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector and in the sector itself that financial reporting requirements are seriously under review. However, consistent with our commitment to letting the public have a say, we will vote for the bill today.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : I firstly congratulate my colleague Amy Adams on what is not only her first member’s bill but, I believe, a very excellent one, the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill.

I spent 20 years working in the sector that she—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I accidentally rang the bell. My apologies.

JONATHAN YOUNG: I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, you owe me another minute.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was the enthusiasm of the speech. My apologies.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Exactly, Mr Deputy Speaker. That bell means that I get to congratulate Amy Adams again, and her name gets written in Hansard as presenting a very excellent bill.

As I was saying, for 20 years I worked in the sector. I believe that this is a very important area, because everything to do with giving in our country has to be based upon integrity and credibility. New Zealanders like to give people a fair go. It is our nature, and it is why we give to charities and to charity collectors. New Zealanders have a giving spirit, with 77 percent planning to make a donation to charity in the next year, according to MasterCard’s September survey of 14 countries. In fact, we are second in the Asia-Pacific region for our generosity, beaten only by Indonesia; I must say that Australia is 11 points behind us. So we need to protect this attitude of generosity and giving. It is part of the Kiwi way of life, where we like to help out each other. It only takes somebody to rip off somebody else to bring some disappointment and cynicism that stops that fantastic sense of community spirit and contribution. So I thank Mrs Adams for putting this bill together. I think it is timely. I think it is needful. Some issues regarding the financial reporting of it need to be worked through, and I am sure that they will be. I think that those percentage figures are pretty close to the mark. I look forward to a select committee working on this bill.

Over recent years the Charities Commission has been established as a central place of registration and financial reporting for charities. That serves to create not only necessary transparency and accountability but, equally important, credibility amongst our charities, because those who register and those who are financially accountable are shown to be bona fide. That is very, very important. There has been a big increase in charities seeking donors’ dollars. It is described as the “alms race” in New Zealand. Generally, the scrutiny of the public has been focused on what proportion of donated funds ends up being spent on the purpose of the charity as compared with being consumed by administration, wages, and salaries of the charity. Like Government, efficiency and productivity are required by charities. I implore and encourage charities to continue to work on this.

I am extremely pleased to support this bill, which Amy Adams has brought to the House, because I believe that it brings the necessity of transparency and accountability to a new level regarding the use and the practice of professional third-party collectors. It requires them to step up to a level of transparency regarding the commission they receive from the proceeds of donated funds. I think there is an acceptance that any organisation will need to spend money to get money. That happens in the field of commerce. We need to understand it, as people do it. It is unrealistic to expect a nil proportion to go towards the sustenance of an organisation and 100 percent to go to the purpose of the organisation. But there comes a percentage threshold that is unacceptable. This bill is working to find that threshold, to find that level, and to bring that accountability. I say to charities that employ the services of those third-party collectors to have care that they do not select people who will take such high percentages of commission, because people are looking at the credibility and accountability of the charities in all of this. Please do not create self-injury by those things.

As I close I say once again congratulations on what I believe is a well-balanced, well-prepared bill. I believe it will help New Zealanders continue to be generous and will help charities function effectively in our country. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

AARON GILMORE (National) : I will just take a quick call on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I am sorry to interrupt proceedings a little, but the reason I want to do so is to say, firstly, it is a pleasure to stand and support my colleague from Canterbury, Amy Adams, on this bill. Mrs Adams is blessed both by her beauty and her brains, or that is what her husband tells me. She has brought a wonderful bill to the House, and I will touch on two aspects that I think have not quite been touched on but are important.

It is important that some charities have the ability to contract out their fund-raising, and hence can use different percentages of administration costs. It is important that those percentages are quite variable, and there is a good question mark over whether the percentages are set correctly now in the bill. I think that this bill has wide-ranging support around this House, and it is excellent to be able to split out some of the minimum disclosure arrangements. I congratulate Amy on having this bill pulled out of the ballot, and I look forward to seeing many more such bills. I look forward, too, to this bill being passed through to the select committee, and to it coming back to the House later on. Thank you.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I thank the House for its support this afternoon, and thank members for their useful and well-thought-through contributions. I will not take a lot more of the House’s time, but I will use this opportunity of the right of reply to address a couple of the things that have come up in the debate. I will start, though, by thanking all party members for their support, particularly Minister Roy, who has been very supportive as the Minister involved. I also say that I deliberately chose the Fair Trading Act for this amendment bill, because that Act is a central piece of consumer protection legislation. As a lawyer I have always enjoyed the width and support it gives consumers, and I am very pleased to see this bill going forward as an amendment to that Act.

I will address, firstly, the issues raised by the Māori Party about industry self-regulation, and Minister Turia’s view that the bill is premature and we should let self-regulation do its thing. As I said in my opening contribution, I am very open to looking at that, and at everything else, in the Commerce Committee. My concern, I have to say, about self-regulation is that I have yet to be convinced about the way industry will ensure that all fund-raisers will buy into that. Certainly, self-regulation works well in professions like law and medicine, where people have to have a licence to practise, but I am not sure how we can force every business that fund-raises to become a member of the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand, and to comply with its rules. If in fact it can be shown that that can be done effectively, then obviously I am more than open to that.

Similarly, Carol Beaumont and David Clendon, in their speeches, touched on the concern about where the thresholds would be placed in the legislation. I am certainly very open to that. I indicated in my first contribution that I like to think I am not one of those politicians who think they know everything. For me, I recognised there was an issue that I wanted to see addressed, and it was a matter of putting a stake in the ground in order to begin the debate. I certainly want to flag, again, that I will certainly be very open to a good discussion in the select committee about where those thresholds should be placed. It may well be that an amendment is necessary. So I want to make that quite clear to the House.

In closing, I say to members how much of a privilege it is, as a member, to bring a bill before this House to address something that I think needs to be addressed, and to have this House work so well across party lines to address the issue on its merits. I thank the House for its support.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.

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.