SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I move, That the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. We are engaging in a historic debate this afternoon. It appears that a majority of MPs in this House, including some from nearly every party represented here, will vote for this bill to proceed to the next stage of the parliamentary process. I know that MPs have various, and at times contradictory, reasons for supporting my bill through its second reading, but nevertheless I would like to thank all of them in advance for being willing to show leadership and take some personal political risk on an issue that divides our country deeply.

From engaging in public debates around New Zealand and hearing the submissions during our long select committee process, it is clear to me that the issue of the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act cuts really deeply into our national psyche. All I am seeking to do is to get rid of a law that allows a defence of reasonable force when parents beat, hit, or otherwise assault their children. Removing that defence would give our offspring the same protection we are kind enough to extend to other adults, police officers, and animals, but not to our babies, children, and young people. Opponents of repeal continue to argue that somehow parents have an inalienable, and indeed at times a God-given, right to hit their children in the name of discipline. For example, let us listen to this extract from one of the submissions opposed to the bill: “Like most children, ours are strong-willed. Their wills are untamed and often applied in ways that can be disruptive or dangerous. They should be taught to respect others and this requires bending their wills, which in turn requires force.” That submitter, in her unassuming way, reflects an underlying attitude towards children that my bill very directly tries to change.

When Pākehā colonists first arrived here, they brought a culture that taught that children, along with women and servants, were the property of their father, husband, or employer, and that they were mere chattels to be brought into line by force. Section 59 is the last legal vestige of that culture. It is no longer legal for employers to beat their employees or their servants, or for husbands to beat their wives. It is still, in this supposedly enlightened 21st century, within the law for parents to beat their children. Our babies and children are physically smaller than us, and they know a lot less about the world than we parents do. Surely, our job as parents should be to nurture and protect them until they reach independent adulthood, not to use force to physically coerce them into submission.

The Unicef report released last week makes that point very clearly. The damning figures on child safety contained in the Innocenti report and our low status compared with that of other developed countries are an indictment of the way we view and treat children in this country: as second-class citizens, not deserving of the same rights and protections as adults. This legislation before us today is a small but very necessary step towards beginning to turn those attitudes around.

The Justice and Electoral Committee worked hard on this bill. We received thousands of written submissions and heard hundreds of submitters in person. As a result of the select committee process, my original bill has been substantially amended. However, I would like to make it very clear that the bill that has come back to the House still clearly and plainly reflects my original intention—that is, to abolish the use of parental force for the purposes of correction. Some supporters of the repeal of section 59 have been concerned that somehow the bill now waters down that intention, or in some way still allows parents to legally use force as punishment. That is not the case. The intention of the newly amended bill is simply to clarify that no parent will be prosecuted for restraining his or her children when, for example, that parent is acting to prevent them from hurting another person or themselves, or to stop them from engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour. The new amendment does not provide a justification for the use of force for the purpose of disciplining a child.

On the other hand, my select committee colleague from the National Party Mr Chester Borrows has made it clear that he intends to put up a different amendment during the Committee stage in the House, aimed at defining reasonable force for the purposes of correction. I will fight that amendment tooth and nail, as I believe it is the worst possible thing we could do in terms of legitimising the use of force against children. I know that Mr Borrows is well meaning, but unfortunately he, like others who want to somehow define “reasonable force”, does not seem to accept or understand that that is the worst possible thing we could do. The effect of any attempt to define “reasonable force”, including Mr Borrows’, is that we would then have the State telling parents that we should hit our kids in some ways and not in others, and that it is still perfectly OK to use force on children and babies that we would not consider using on adults, who are actually much more able to look after themselves. Defining “acceptable force” also undermines the fantastic work being done by the SKIP programme, and by church and community groups all over New Zealand in teaching and supporting parents to use other ways of bringing up their children that do not involve the use of physical discipline.

Our country has made some progress in ensuring domestic violence against adults is unacceptable and illegal—even inside the privacy of the home. It is high time to give children the same protection that we give adults and to bring an end to the situation in which police are able to prosecute a husband for assaulting his wife, but do not prosecute him for assaulting his child because he has a defence for that act.

The debate around repealing section 59 is very intense, and I think it is good that we are having a national discussion on an issue of such concern to so many people here. However, some of the opposition to its repeal has been led by a very small group who claim to represent Christians. Of the 2 million people in the last census with any Christian affiliation, I believe only a small minority would subscribe to the belief of some that children are little bundles of depravity who deserve and, in fact, need to have sin beaten out of them, even as toddlers. The leadership of the Christian Churches and many individual Christians have dissociated themselves from such statements. But I think it is a pity that the views of a vociferous minority have dominated this aspect of the debate, when many people of faith believe that, in fact, the attitude of Jesus to children was one of welcome and kindness. Nowhere did Jesus advocate physical punishment and the infliction of pain upon children, nor is he reported to have advised any parents to use physical discipline against their children.

Some of the opposition to repealing section 59 has been even more extreme than that of the most immoderate of the Christians. Just today there have been postings on the cyfswatch website that talk about the possibility of assassinating me, with one contributor saying, for example: “… I would like the opportunity to drive my fist straight into her face as hard as I can, hopefully breaking her nose or jaw in the process.” There is more that I am not keen on repeating. A later posting asks anyone who knows my residential address to send it in to the website so it can be published, as “… MP’s should no more be immune from consequences as the rest of us.” I would not normally relate that kind of thing to the House, but I do so for two reasons today. Firstly, I do it because I think the best response to this kind of intimidation is to make sure as many people as possible know about it, and know it is not going to silence me or any of the other thousands of people—literally—who are working for this bill. Secondly, I do it because I think comments like those indicate the violent nature of some of those who so fiercely defend the rights of parents to legally assault their children.

Finally, I want to say a few words on criminalisation. Much of the opposition to this bill has been driven by those who are spreading the message that if section 59 is abolished, suddenly tens of thousands of loving parents will find themselves arrested by the police and prosecuted by the courts for lightly and occasionally smacking their child. Although it is true that if this bill succeeds, the use of force for correction will technically be an offence, that does not mean that our already very stretched police force will be taking that kind of action. The police investigate the maltreatment of a child only after a complaint is made. The investigation takes into account a whole series of guidelines, such as the facts of the case, how serious the offence is, and whether there are alternatives to prosecution. Every day in this country many minor and technical assaults take place that are not investigated and/or that no prosecution eventuates from. The situation will not change with the passing of my bill. A real campaign of fear has been created around criminalisation, and I am sorry that so many parents have felt unnecessarily threatened.

The time has come to change this archaic law. My bill, on its own, will not change the culture of violence against children in New Zealand, but it is one of a wide range of measures that are necessary if we are ever to be able to hold our heads high in the community of nations as a country that really is a great place to bring up kids.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : It has been a privilege and an education to sit as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s subcommittee considering the evidence and hearing submissions in respect of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. I am grateful for the respect each member showed, and I thank Sue Bradford, Ann Hartley, Lynne Pillay, Nicky Wagner, and—later on—Russell Fairbrother, for that. After sitting on the subcommittee listening to the submissions and reading the material, the group of five became relatively close in spite of the gulf that lies between us on the fundamentals of the bill.

I find myself in the unusual position of indicating that I will vote for the second reading of this bill, as the mechanism for introducing an amendment that will protect parents from prosecution for assault if they even lightly smack their children. The fact that I am doing this may seem a bit strange, but I am sure it will not be the first time that people outside the House look at what we do in here and wonder what the hell we are up to. I strongly confirm my intention to vote against the bill if my subsequent amendment fails; I will not vote to criminalise good parents and, happily, 80 percent of Kiwis agree with me. The threat that if my amendment is successful the proponent of the bill, Sue Bradford, will withdraw the bill, and so scuttle any decision in respect of this matter, would really put pride before principle. She would be saying that section 59 as it remains today is so abhorrent to the country in relation to the good upbringing and raising of children that she would rather leave it in that state than in the better state it would be in should my amendment be successful.

The bill, as it was outlined to us on day one by the proponent, seeks to stop child abuse—and who would not? But everything gets pretty murky after that. Everyone on both sides of the debate knows that this bill will not stop child abuse, so the best the bill’s supporters can do is to say that it can send a message. But who does it send a message to? Does anybody really think that the killer of the Kāhui twins thought about the law before or during the horrific and fatal assaults? Dragging out the names of other tragic icons of our child homicide legacy should not even feature in this debate, because nobody believes for a single moment that Delcelia Witikā, “Lillybing”, James Whakaruru, or any on the list of pathetic victims would have been saved by this legislation.

I believe we would have a better chance of stemming child abuse if we could legislate for parents to love their children more than golf, or work, or horses and pokies, or booze, or the women they run off with, or TV, or fishing, and more than scoring points against their estranged partner and the parent of their children. We would have a better chance of stemming child abuse if we could legislate to ensure that parents cared enough about their own children’s security and happiness so that they did not slag off one another and make the children the meat in the sandwich of every family argument.

The fact is that that legislation will not work. If it does not work it is not worth the paper it is written on if there is no intention of enforcing the legislation. I say to those pledging to vote for this legislation to go right through the process and past the third reading, that they offer no hope to those they most want to protect. If this legislation passes into law without amendment, those it will most affect will be ordinary, caring parents, who will either smack and feel the guilt of breaking the law or who will not smack because they do not want to break the law. It is plain as the nose on one’s face that the children of such parents have never been in danger.

The huge point to make here is that changing the behaviours of parents, including the parents of children at risk, is best being addressed by programmes such as the SKIP programme. We are achieving the whole “send a message” objective now through education, and not through legislation. Fantastic results after only 2 years show that 34 percent of parents of small children are aware of the SKIP programme, which offers realistic alternatives to corporal punishment, but Labour will not back its own programme to succeed.

So given the goals of the legislation, what is the definition of child abuse? Those in favour of the bill as proposed place child abuse on a continuum from the mildest touch to child homicide. The fact is that child abuse is not defined by any independent authority. Of course, section 59 does not offer a defence to child abuse; it offers a defence to the use of force for the purpose of correction. It does not defend the use of force because a parent is drunk, angry, or stupid, but offers a defence solely to the purpose of correction. The application of force becomes relevant in the crime of assault, and section 59 provides a defence to the crime of assault.

So what is the definition of assault? The definition of assault is given in section 2 of the Crimes Act: “Assault means the act of intentionally applying … force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning.” The definition of assault does not help much, because it does not define reasonable force, or, as the wording of section 59 states, force that is “reasonable in the circumstances.” But we know from this definition that only a least amount of force is necessary for an assault. So, for instance, as distasteful as it may seem, the amount of force contained in a spit is an assault. A swing and miss is an assault. Just raising a hand is an assault under the definition. For a parent, a smack on the hand or the bottom is an assault. Currently, the existence of section 59 prevents a parent from being prosecuted for this, but if this bill is passed it will make that smack, no matter how light, justifiable, or timely, illegal.

The argument from the other side goes that the police can be trusted not to charge parents for smacking. Well, this is not about trust. This debate is about who the lawmakers are and who the social agencies are. If we are going to protect parents, their situation needs to be enshrined in legislation. This is a free and democratic society. A fundamental tenet of the rule of law in this country is that the law is clear and concise; it is not at the end of a social worker’s tongue or a police officer’s tongue when facing a parent, who, having been driven mad by an estranged partner in the middle of a custody dispute, threatens with phone call and lawyer’s letter that if action is not taken, it will be plastered all over the newspapers or some ratings-grabbing documentary. After every supermarket incident or every schoolchild’s morning talk, it will mean that every whiff of a complaint is fully investigated, on the basis that the teacher, the social worker, and the police officer will be scared stiff that if an investigation is not completed, then there will be another child homicide statistic. Those people just know that they will be hung out to dry by yet another Minister who voted for this pig’s ear piece of legislation, and hid behind his or her department.

It is an MP’s job to make laws that Government agencies enforce. The agencies have their job and we have ours. I look forward to proposing an amendment to protect parents from criminalisation by a “sect” of parliamentarians and interest groups who, in spite of the statistics and in spite of history, are prepared to put window-dressing ahead of the families of New Zealand, because in their arrogance they think they know best for all of us. I look forward to holding them to account.

The question to those members of this House, especially to those conservative members of Labour who are being whipped on this debate, is how they will respond to this. How will Damien O’Connor respond to this? How will Harry Duynhoven, Clayton Cosgrove, Dover Samuels, and George Hawkins respond to this, when they know, and are prepared to say privately, something slightly different from what the leaders of their party are proposing? They will have to carry the can. When that first parent gets prosecuted for giving a smack on the bottom, which at the moment is legal and defendable under section 59, he or she will be dragged before the court—and I look forward to hearing those members’ responses then.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) : It is a pleasure and a privilege to speak on behalf of a unified Labour caucus and, indeed, a unified Government on this important measure. The recent debate on and around this issue has been vigorous, and I welcome that vigorous debate because it is part of the light of day being shone on an issue that must be debated and confronted by any civilised society. The issue it deals with has also been brought to light and into sharp focus more generally in recent days by the recently released Unicef report on child well-being.

I think because of the interest and debate it is important that we do not lose sight of what this member’s bill is aiming to achieve. The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill aims to abolish the shield of so-called reasonable force as a defence by those who perpetrate acts of violence and abuse against children. That is the purpose of this provision. Of course, the bill is not a panacea for all of our social ills, nor is it claimed to be so, but it will make a crucial difference, and I think it is important that this House recognises that the bill will, at an important time, make an important statement.

That is why this Government has been addressing the sorts of issues that have been raised in the Unicef report through significant programmes such as Working for Families. Of course, this bill is not the panacea for all of the underlying issues and concerns that affect many of our families. The Working for Families tax credits are a good example of something that will substantially change the well-being of many, many New Zealand families. By 2008 we will have reduced the percentage of children living below 50 percent of the median income level from 14.6 percent to just 4.5 percent. This will put New Zealand in the top four countries in the OECD, along with Denmark, Finland, and Norway. That is something we should be proud of, because that indeed starts to address, in a serious and meaningful way, some of the many other underlying issues that affect the well-being of our children and our families.

To return to this bill, I say that in effect the bill will give children the same right as has the rest of society—that is, the right not to be assaulted. As many commentators have pointed out, even animals currently enjoy stronger legal protections in some regards than our children do. How can any member of this House accept that that is a tolerable situation? So today we are presented with an opportunity to demonstrate an enlightened leadership and to make a difference in a critically important area—the welfare and safety of our children.

One of the people who spoke at considerable length on this issue, and who I believe appeared before the Justice and Electoral Committee also, the manager of Barnardos, Mike Coleman, summed up well the problem with the current situation. This is a man who represents an organisation that I think every member of this House would respect in terms of its front-line work. He said: “Every day our frontline staff see the consequences of inadequate and confused parenting in our country. Whether to use physical punishment or not is one of the points of confusion. On the one hand, the Domestic Violence Act says that it is an offence for a child to even witness or experience the threat of physical violence in the context of family life,”—so it should be, I say to members opposite. So it should be that it is wrong, and it should be held illegal that children are subjected to the witnessing of acts of violence in their family life. Mr Coleman continues: “On the other hand, Section 59 …”—and this is legislation that has its genesis hundreds of years back in English law—“says that it is OK for parents to use ‘reasonable force’. What parent is going to say in court that the force they used was not reasonable?”.

When we talk about court, we are not talking about the sorts of situations that Mr Borrows referred to; we are talking about situations in which cases of serious violence and abuse are being brought. This existing provision has enabled people to mount a defence that has worked. People have been able to sustain a defence under section 59. I say to members that society changes and progresses. It is the mark of a civilised society that we develop new and more effective ways of doing things, of thinking about things, and of living our day-to-day lives together as a society. If it is true of our cars, of our televisions, and of our cellphones, then surely it also has to be the case for something as profoundly important as raising our children.

As I have noted, section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 is a remnant of an earlier time. It is available as a defence to parents or caregivers charged with offences involving the use of physical force to discipline their children. I say again to members that in the type of case in which charges are usually laid, people who have violently abused children—for instance, those who have beaten them with a plank of wood—have used this section to successfully defend their actions. So this bill seeks to protect our children and to remove a defence that is used by a small group of people who are charged with this sort of violent abuse. It is not there to punish, and this is not about punishing, good parents.

Our Government is determined to balance the need to make sure that good and caring parents are supported, while ensuring that children are protected absolutely from abuse. This is something that I believe New Zealanders overwhelmingly support. Changing this archaic statute is one part of the strategy needed to address the issues confronting us—they are many. But let us be clear: the stresses and pressures of raising children—and many of us in this House have done or are endeavouring to do that—cannot and should not be underestimated. It is a tough job and it is getting tougher, I believe, as the world becomes a more rapidly evolving and complex place.

Our Government recognises there is a real need for more public education to provide people with support and information about alternatives to the physical discipline of children. In considering the bill the Justice and Electoral Committee recommended that this focus should be strengthened further, and our Government certainly agrees with that. We have invested nearly $11 million over 3 years to establish the SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents programme, which Mr Borrows referred to. The programme promotes positive parenting and actively assists parents by informing them about effective, non-physical ways of disciplining children—and contrary to the suggestion made by the Opposition, Budget 2006 provided a further nearly $15 million over the next 4 years to enable this valuable programme to continue. The issues we are dealing with are complex ones and they require a range of solutions. Clearly, public education is an important factor in that mix. Parenting, as I said before, is a difficult job. It is far too important not to help provide all the tools possible in order to support parents in this all-important activity.

In November, along with a number of my parliamentary colleagues from around the House, I took part in events to mark White Ribbon Day, which seeks to end domestic violence in our country and around the world. It was noticeable, and I thought encouraging, how many men were supporting this initiative and who were getting out on the street to say that domestic violence is not OK, it is not acceptable, and it cannot be tolerated any more. Like stopping domestic violence against women, stopping violence against children demands support from across our society.

This bill, of course, will not fix all the ailments of society; nor do its supporters contend that it will. However, I would encourage members to recognise that this legislation is an important component of a broader effort to address the issue of violence against our children. The current legislative provision, frankly, belongs in the Dark Ages.

Parliament is where we make laws that affect every element of our day-to-day lives in our society. The issue of the well-being and safety of our children is something that we simply must not turn our backs on. On 1 March we celebrate Children’s Day. This is a day for reflecting on what we have done to nurture and to protect our children. I urge all members to take this opportunity to send our children the right message. But I say to members that it simply cannot any longer be tolerable that in 21st century New Zealand we afford greater legal protection to our animals than we do to our children.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : I want to make it clear from the outset that the New Zealand First caucus has been divided along the full spectrum regarding this Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. I started at one extreme and have long held this position—that is, for full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. Ron Mark, on the other hand, started at the other end of the spectrum, and in fact it would be fair to say that he has not moved very far from that position.

It is a hallmark of New Zealand First, however, that we have always been able to accommodate diversity within our caucus when it comes to conscience issues. However, it would be fair to say that diversity around the issue has now congealed over whether we need to state clearly in the law that a simple smack is not illegal—â la the Chester Borrows amendment—or whether full repeal of section 59 would assume that situation.

In my case I have long been persuaded of the need for full repeal by my experience as a schoolteacher and a principal. I used to use corporal punishment. Teachers were protected by section 59, which allowed teachers—and principals, as in my case—to hit children as hard as they could up to six times on the hand or the buttock with a leather strap or a cane. I can assure members that it left considerable bruising. I had grown up in a schooling system that made liberal use of corporal punishment and I simply continued what I had learnt.

However, in 1990, whilst I was on a stint with the Education Review Office, the Government removed teachers from the protection of section 59. At the end of that year I took over as principal of an intermediate school. I soon found that the school was rife with violence, both physical and verbal. However, I could not fall back on my old control mechanisms, and I have to say that this really challenged me.

What I was left with was the need to turn my whole philosophy on its head. We declared the school to be a non-violent territory, both verbally and physically; we trained the teachers in non-violent management methods; and we focused on catching the kids when they were good. We still had negative consequences for unacceptable behaviour and we applied them rigorously—indeed, as a principal, I was considered a martinet.

The result? The school became a much happier place. Parents sent their children along in increasing numbers because they saw the school as a safe place for their children to go to. Teaching positions became highly sought after, so we had the pick of the crop of teachers who were available.

However, about 6 months into the process, I had a young lad who was really trying to rark me up. In the past I would have become angry as a precursor to applying corporal punishment. I suddenly realised that this was not happening—I was not becoming angry. In other words, as a result of that law change and the knowledge that we had put in place a system that ensured there would be consequences for bad behaviour, I had changed, and I believe that I had changed for the better.

I hope, therefore, that people will understand why I believe in full repeal. It is critical that we establish the mindset in this country that children are unbeatable. Of two things I am sure. Firstly, very few New Zealanders want a continuation of the physical punishment of children at the upper level at which section 59 allows an offence—for example, the hitting of children with wooden sticks, riding crops, etc. The second thing is that I know of no one who wishes to criminalise parents who give their child an odd smack.

It is my view that it is extremely important that parents establish clear boundaries for their children—anything less, I believe, is a form of child abuse—and that they follow up with appropriate consequences if those boundaries are breached. But parents have at their disposal a whole range of negative and positive consequences that do not require their hitting their children. The mistake we have made has been to meld the two concepts of discipline and hitting when, in fact, they are extremely separate constructs. The organisation that, arguably, is the most dependent upon discipline of its members is the armed services, yet hitting is not used in the armed services as a means of achievement of discipline—and we must remember that in the past members of the armed services were flogged.

The arguments made by those opposed to the bill seem to have focused on one particular point, which is that parents—or people in the place of parents—who provide the odd smack would automatically be dragged before the courts to be found guilty of assault, and would forever have that mark against their name. This belief, without a doubt, has frightened many, many good parents in this country who do not regularly beat their children, but may from time to time give them a smack on their hand. It seems to me that if this argument can be refuted, then a large proportion of the opposition to full repeal simply melts away.

A law that has been on our statute book since 1877 creates quite a significant imposition on parents: it states that parents are responsible for ensuring that their children are at school whenever the school is open for instruction. But, virtually every parent of a school-age student breaches this law on more than one occasion every year. Yet we do not see hordes of parents being dragged before the courts. The law is a form of declaratory law that is used only when non-attendance is seriously affecting a child’s rights to an education, and, even then, only after significant intervention by a range of agencies.

Opponents to this law change point to the immutability of the law. They conveniently ignore some significant legal principles, most especially the legal principle of de minimis non curat lex, which says that the law does not concern itself with trifles. Even if a technical violation of the law has occurred, the judge can simply strike out the charge on the grounds that the offence is too trivial.

Let me explain. At present it is a breach of the law to travel faster than 100 kilometres per hour on the open road. Police would be laughed out of court if they tried to prosecute a motorist for travelling at 100.1 kilometres per hour, yet that motorist would have been breaking the law. That is the application of the de minimis principle.

I will give members an example closer to the issue we are debating. At present it is an assault under the Crimes Act for a teacher to forcibly take a child by the hand and remove him or her, for example to a place of time out. Teachers do not have a defence under section 59; Phil Goff removed that defence, in 1990. Let me tell members that teachers, particularly those in the early childhood and new entrants classes, breach this law on almost a daily basis. Yet have we seen even one such case brought to the court in the 16 years since the law for teachers—supposedly in loco parentis—was changed? The answer is no.

Yet there are those who are still not convinced. They still say the police will be required to bring prosecutions against parents who give the odd smack. I have a letter on file from the Commissioner of Police that clearly states that is not the truth. However, for those who are not convinced, let me read out some of the 17 factors to be considered when deciding to prosecute—or not—as set out in the New Zealand Police Manual of Best Practice. The factors include evidential sufficiency; well, it is pretty hard to get that on a smack. They include the public interest—is it in the public interest to prosecute parents for giving their kid an odd smack? They also include the seriousness or triviality of the offence, whether the consequences of any conviction would be unduly harsh and oppressive, and a number of other things such as the attitude, for example, of the victims and the prosecution, the likely length and expense of a trial, the cooperation of the accused, and the degree of culpability. If members go through those 17 principles, I can assure them that they will see that no policeman would prosecute for a simple smack.

I finish by making a comment about Chester Borrows’ amendment. For this amendment to become law this bill must pass the reading today. It is therefore utterly hypocritical for those who claim they wish to retain the right to smack to be lobbying for MPs to oppose this second reading.

Chester Borrows’ amendment, which I can say a number of New Zealand First members support, would no doubt be an improvement on the current law—of that I have no doubt. However, it still sends a message that it is all right to hit children. This is not a message one should be sending to the parents of New Zealand. The message we should be sending is that we understand if, from time to time, parents smack their children, and rather than criminalise them we would prefer to help them to develop a different and more efficacious repertoire of responses to their children’s behaviour.

Let me make it clear that the children who were recently stabbed by their father would not have been saved by this law change. Neither would Coral Burrows or the Kāhui twins. In these cases we are dealing with totally different social phenomena.

My experience and research heads my conscience to only one conclusion: the need for full repeal of section 59. However, I wish to reiterate that my New Zealand First colleagues’ consciences have not necessarily led them to the same conclusion.

There is one point, however, that I do wish to finish with. If the public does not wish me to use my conscience on issues such as this, I should not be allowed a conscience vote. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) :Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnātātou te Whare. If one went into any kōhanga reo throughout Aotearoa, chances are that one would hear a waiata being sung with huge gusto:

He taonga o tōkungākau, ko taku mokopuna, e.

He mokopuna korikori hei aha, hei aha rā.

Ko te mea nui, ko te aroha.

Kaua koe e patu taku mokopuna.

Hei awhiawhi mai taku mokopuna korikori, e.

[A treasure of my heart is indeed my grandchild.

Even if he or she is a fidgety one, it is not a concern.

Loving is the most important thing.

Don’t hit my grandchild.

My fidgety grandchild is for cuddling.]

This waiata talks about our mokopuna being truly precious—the treasures of our heart. It is a waiata that reminds us all not to hit our children and that promotes the messages of caring, kindness, and love. It is a call that restores the traditional values of our ancestors as being values for action—values that ask us to consider the way in which we bring up our children as fundamental towards setting standards to live by. There is such a rich archive of knowledge—mōteatea, whakatauākī, karakia, and waiata—that reinforces the special gifts required to cherish our children. It holds messages, such as the kōhanga song, that inspire us to be the best parents and to love our children and our mokopuna with all our hearts. I am also aware that other messages are vigorously promoted as providing guidance on how to raise a child.

Over the last year our office has been bombarded with correspondence from advocates opposing this bill. We have heard a common refrain that offers one interpretation of the biblical phrase: “Spare the rod and spoil the child.”, as the argument has been put that this phrase justifies the use of corporal or physical punishment. From my understanding of Christian beliefs, the rod referred to was a shepherd’s crook. It was used to guide or to nurture a flock on to the right path. It was not a directive to pick up a cane and wallop a child. In Te Ao Māori we have a concept similar to that of the shepherd’s rod in the saying: “He aroha whāea, he pōtikipiripono”. This is a message to us that essentially parents who care for and nurture their children will find that their children will stay longer with them. If time is given to pass on values and to give guidance on responsibilities and obligations, then children are less likely to deviate from these—“as the twig is bent, so shall the tree grow.”

Māori history and literature provide ample guidance about the difference between discipline and the violence of assault against children. The first extensively published ethnographic work by a Māori scholar, The Old-Time Māori, by Makareti Papakura of NgātiWāhiao, Te Arawa, described the experiences she had observed: “The Māori never beat their children, but were always kind to them and this seemed to strengthen the bond of affection which remains among Māori throughout life.” Indeed, there have been so many sources similarly describing the promotion of peace and care for children as a traditional value amongst tangata whenua that Professor Dame Anne Salmond described pre-colonisation as a “golden age” in her book . Tuhotoariki of Ngāi Tara composed an oriori for his nephew Tuteremoana that was dedicated towards assisting the whānau to support that child in acquiring the vital life skills necessary to achieve his optimum potential. Another source, te oriori mo Matareta, guides a child in the history and traditions of its people, demonstrating that both women and men were the carers and that children were entitled to security, respect, and protection.

By sharing some of these time-honoured stories and values I do not want to suggest that everything is rosy in our homes today. For the reality is, as this House well knows, that New Zealand is suffering from a shameful record of epic proportions in terms of the way in which we mistreat our children. Last week’s United Nations’ Unicef report displayed our filthy washing for the world to see. We have the highest rate of children dying from accident or injury in the 25 OECD countries studied. Dr Gay Keating, director of the Public Health Association, summed it up with her call for a major rethink to show that we value our children. She said: “The health of our children is the responsibility of us all. Investing in our children now will reward us a thousand-fold in the future. If we ever needed a wake-up call, this report is it.”

The Māori Party is of the view that the decision to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act is exactly the type of investment we need to be making if we are committed to our children living in an environment free of violence. This bill will, in effect, place parents in the same position as that of any person who uses forcible action against another adult—in other words, who assaults someone. This bill now removes the opportunity for assault against children to be recognised as reasonable by defining the types of actions one may take to remedy a situation requiring discipline. The bill sets out a range of approaches—such as pulling a child away from harm or when it is harming others, or putting a child in a room for time out—and defines what is an appropriate preventive measure.

I was raised firstly by my grandmother. At no time did she raise her hand or her voice in taking care of me or my cousins, who were all loved, nurtured, and cared for by her. She lived kaupapa and tikanga, and I hope that that is what my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren remember about me when I am gone. Speaking as a mother, grandmother, and proud great-grandmother, I know too well the challenge of child rearing and of how it is easy, even with the best intentions, for one’s patience to wear thin and for the weapons at the end of one’s arms to become too easy to apply. I believe that when we smack a child we send the message that it is OK to hit others if we think they are doing something wrong to us.

As a general rule I am not someone who smacks, but that is not to say that I have not been sorely tempted over the years. Wherever I go, whether it is to the supermarket, the marae, or a shopping mall down the street, I know how frequently smacking is used as the first resort. Yet, as Littlies Lobby research tells us, 97 percent of over 1,300 parents of preschoolers who were surveyed did not believe that physical discipline was highly effective. So we are in a catch-22 situation. Parents know that smacking does not work, yet it has become so commonplace that the repeal of section 59 was vehemently opposed and created a near-record number of submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

This bill has raised many complex issues for parents and caregivers right around the country. The Māori Party has certainly appreciated the insights of submitters to the select committee who have shared their frustrations around the apparent State interference in the autonomous right of parents to care for their children. We too would be concerned if the new requirements had the impact of criminalising parents, of children being removed from their care, and of the family becoming another statistic in the State welfare records. This morning Greg O’Connor from the Police Association basically said that the police will prosecute people who break the law, which must cause us some serious concern. The new section 59 will still beg interpretation. What, for instance, is understood by “performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.”? As has already been suggested, monitoring of judicial decisions and child discipline cases will be necessary to ensure that abusive behaviour is actually being recognised and stopped.

So what we have had to weigh up are the concerns of parents and our kaupapa. We believe that it is critical that a line in the sand be drawn. The time has come for a very strong message of no hitting and non-violence to be promoted in every possible way. It is because of our kaupapa that we therefore see the aspirational value of this bill as being a beacon of pride for all whānau to hold as they establish the pathway forward for their tamariki. Kia ora.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : This will be a conscience vote for United Future. I will be voting against the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. But, should the bill pass the second reading, I will be voting for the amendment that will replace the current wording of the bill with the alternative—and, in my view, the much superior alternative—that has been suggested by the Law Commission. The bill as it stands, in my view, is gravely flawed. I say that because of my deep conviction that the right and the responsibility to train and discipline children belongs to parents. The role of the State should be limited to ensuring, for the common good, the safety of New Zealand children. But subject to that overriding criterion, the choice of which particular means parents use to discipline their children belongs to them, and to them alone.

This bill, in my judgment, is, therefore, a gross intrusion by the State into an area that goes way beyond its confidence and responsibility. That is why some people have labelled this bill the “Home Invasion Bill”. The State does not belong there. It would be inconceivable, for example, for this House to be passing a bill saying that all New Zealand parents must smack their children. It would not get past first base. If that is the case, by what logic could Parliament decide that it should intervene in the child-parent relationship to outlaw a simple smack with the hand—which is all that is proposed in Chester Borrows’ amendment—in the context of loving child discipline?

It is my conviction that love and discipline go together; they are two sides of the same coin. That has always been the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Indeed, the scriptures are quite clear on the matter. They state that parents who do not discipline their child do not actually love that child. They scriptures go on to say that of course any punishment is most painful at the time and far from pleasant, but later it bears fruit in peace and goodness in those on whom it has been used. This is backed up with the extensive research—including some in New Zealand—and the life experience of millions of people who as children were smacked, within the context of a loving family environment, and grew up to be good and peaceful adults. I am one of those people.

Of course, the beating or the thrashing of a child in anger is a totally different matter. That is exactly the point. There is a dichotomy between a smack, in the context of loving discipline, on the one hand, and the beating or thrashing of a child in anger, on the other. The first should be lawful; the second is already—and should remain—unlawful. That is actually pretty simple, is it not? So why is there so much confusion? The Judaeo-Christian tradition and the Greek philosophical tradition, through people such as Aristotle, have held for millennia that children are not born virtuous; that they are designed to be trained to be virtuous. With training and discipline they will become virtuous, because of the satisfaction that virtue itself yields in the life of an individual.

That is the Western tradition. But, as some members may know, the 18th century French author Rousseau began a reversal of that view, in relation to child discipline. He wrote an essay backwards. In his essay children were born into a wonderful Garden of Eden—literally a kindergarten—virtuous, loving, and kind from the moment they were born. It was the corrupting influence of their parents and society that then robbed them of that original state and converted them into aggressive, angry, and nasty adults. That thought has since penetrated deeply into Western society—and tonight’s bill, as drafted, reflects exactly that philosophical position. However, the truth is that Rousseau wrote that essay as a joke. The tragedy is that so many people in the Western World—including some educationalists—have never got the joke, but have instead decided that his essay sets forward the truth. He never intended that. Indeed, believing that to be the truth, people unwittingly believe a lie.

Let us move on to Dr Benjamin Spock. His book Baby and Child Care became the best selling book of the latter part of the 20th century. It was a great book, of huge help to countless millions of parents—including my wife and me. However, we disagreed with Spock on one point, and that was in relation to smacking. Spock opposed smacking, and millions believed him. But it is true that Spock publicly apologised later in life, and freely admitted that he had got that particular part of his book completely wrong—something that he deeply regretted—admitting that, with the best of intentions, he had simply had a direct role in the raising of a generation of spoiled brats.

This bill is opposed by around 80 percent of New Zealand parents. It breaches the principle of subsidiarity: that political power should be devolved to the level where it coincides with responsibility. When it comes to child discipline, as I have already stated, that power belongs exclusively to parents. We must not—and we dare not—step over that boundary. In the future, when a parent at his or her wits’ end decides to resort to a smack, then remembers that it is now unlawful and will make that parent a criminal—because we are talking about the Crimes Act here—I suggest he or she ring a member of this Parliament and tell that member to come and sort out the situation, because we will not be doing that. Parents have the responsibility at the time to take some action. It is their responsibility and we should encourage, empower, and support them in that role.

That is why I will support the amendment that is to be proposed at the Committee stage by Chester Borrows, so that a smack using the hand only, and provided it results in no more than trifling and transitory injury, will remain lawful in the context of the discipline of a child by his or her parents. Implements of all any sort—wooden spoons and rulers, etc.—are outlawed under the sensible drafting by the Law Commission. I have no doubt that that is the right position, but I will go further. It is of fundamental importance that as a Parliament we clearly signal to the parents of New Zealand that they have the sole responsibility to discipline, train, and raise their children to be good citizens of New Zealand. They should do so with confidence, secure in the knowledge that in the complex circumstances whereby a child of theirs is throwing a fit and being disobedient and violent, etc., they can smack that child as one of their disciplinary tools. It is not compulsory; it is an option, that is all. No one is saying that people should necessarily smack their children. But in those situations, in their judgment, we should have the confidence to say to them that they can use a light smack on their children.

We should not even go near the point where we are going with this bill. I hear so many parents saying on talkback radio: “Parliament is undermining my confidence. I no longer know whether or not I am allowed to smack my children. Furthermore, I am dead scared of the consequences from both Child, Youth and Family and the police.” That is not the kind of nation we want, where parents live in fear. We want to instil confidence in them. We want to train them. United Future is for every form of parental education going. We would like to see massive resources being put into it. We would like to see every parent in the country properly trained to be a good parent. But we must not overstep the mark. We must build confidence in them. Norman Kirk would turn in his grave if knew that the Labour Party is supporting this bill, because he was very strong on that point. It is not experts who raise children. It is not teachers or social workers; it is parents, and we should be totally on their side—100 percent, without fear or favour.

I say that if misguided members of this Parliament are prepared to brand New Zealand parents as criminals when they smack a child who in their judgment deserves it because of the circumstances—in the context of love, not anger—with the view of producing good citizens in this country, then we have failed them. If we brand those parents as criminals then we have failed them and failed them badly. Thank you.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) : There is not one MP in this House who condones violence or abuse of any kind against children. Every one of us wants every Kiwi child to grow up in a loving environment, safe from the abhorrent treatment meted out to the Kāhui twins, “Lillybing”, and James Whakaruru. Sadly, the list goes on and on. There will be more cases like those. Our natural inclination is to take action immediately.

As legislators we are in a powerful situation. We can try to make a difference by changing laws to reflect the sort of society we want for our children. But the laws we make need to be enforceable and regularly enforced, otherwise they are mere words and completely meaningless. The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill fails on both those counts. Sadly, if it is passed it will not save the life of even one child or stop the abuse and violence to children who are subjected to terrible maltreatment that would make our stomachs turn. For this reason, ACT opposes the bill.

I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity or good intentions of the sponsor of this bill. Sue Bradford, like many of us, has long campaigned for initiatives to end the violence and abuse suffered by our babies, toddlers, and vulnerable youth. But good intentions alone are not enough. This debate, which has been going on for some time now, has relied on emotion rather than reason, and on rules rather than results.

The easy option for me today would be to vote in favour of this bill, to show that violence is being taken seriously, in the hope that it would change those who victimise our defenceless children, and to clear our consciences. But I fear that all that will be achieved by repealing section 59 is to turn loving parents into criminals, and in the course of doing so we will make no difference to the real problems that exist in too many Kiwi communities. Caring for those who cannot defend themselves is one of the finest things about our civilisation. But the unintended result of the bill is that it will criminalise thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of very good parents.

The original version of the bill outlawed any form of physical punishment or restraint. It made even the lightest uninvited but deliberate touch punishable by law. Holding still their child while dressing that child would have turned parents into criminals. The bill changed significantly during the select committee process and is now a watered-down version of that.

I do not need to be persuaded that it is essential to reduce our level of family violence. That is why I am participating in the joint-party initiative to look into this matter, despite the fact that I have some scepticism about the ability of large committees to make positive change. Violence is a plague that haunts our New Zealand communities, and I agree that violence begets violence. Stopping the violence is imperative, but this bill is not the answer.

Our existing law against child abuse and violence against children is already strong. Under section 194 of the Crimes Act, assaulting a child under the age of 14 attracts a maximum sentence, which is double that of common assault. Under section 195 of the Crimes Act, cruelty to a child brings a 5-year maximum sentence. And abandoning a child under 6 means a 7-year prison term under section 154 of the Crimes Act.

The key is in enforcement. Enforcement involves doing three things properly. The first thing is reporting or detection. We in New Zealand have failed our children in this respect. Everybody—all of us in this House, everybody in the gallery, and everybody living in a community—owes it to the children living near and with them to report and to detect violence against those children. The second area of enforcement is trial. Again, trials frequently do not happen. The third area is that of conviction and sentencing. Again, I believe we have let down our New Zealand children in this regard with our sentencing and parole Acts and the level of conviction we have. If any one of these three elements of enforcement fails, criminals will go free.

We as legislators should be striving to help encourage the enforcement of the laws that already exist. The police are already struggling to cope. Child, Youth and Family is already struggling to cope. Repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act will not aid either of those agencies. Most abuse is not reported to authorities until severe damage has been done to too many young lives. Around 70 percent of serious abuse occurs in families not already known to Child, Youth and Family. As the speaker before me, Gordon Copeland, pointed out, much of this debate rests on the difference between smacking and violence. I would like to say that I agree entirely with his comments on that matter. As a parent I certainly do not believe that those two things are one and the same.

Reasonable people know when discipline ends and violence and abuse begin. The rest of the people—an abusive minority, and we should not forget that fact—will not notice or care that a law change has been made. The threat, because that is what this bill is actually intended to be, will be ignored by the very people who should heed the warning. Those parents who care for their children already, and take their responsibilities seriously, will be the only ones who suffer.

The greatest good, in my view, can be done by helping vulnerable families directly. There are many wonderful initiatives operating around New Zealand, and sadly we too often ignore the very good work that they do. There are mentoring programmes such as those promoted and put into action by the Family Help Trust in Christchurch where social workers go into homes and give people the advice and help they need, whether about health issues, education issues, or welfare issues. There are many well-established programmes that help parents directly such as the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters that exist around the country.

We could have a great deal more promotion of antenatal education preparation for vulnerable expectant parents about the pressures of raising a family. We know those families that are at risk and we should be targeting them directly. We could be promoting wholeheartedly child protection services for the whole country, like the single programme that operates out of Starship Children’s Health in Auckland. There is much work to be done and much work that should happen immediately.

Many of us in this House are parents—in fact, I think most of us are. So those of us who are speaking today stand here wearing two hats. Many of us have very different parenting philosophies; that is not to say that some are good and some are bad, or some are right and some are wrong. We all have different ideas about what is best for our children. All of those philosophies are aimed at bringing up happy and healthy children.

ACT opposes this bill but that is not because we do not care for our children. We simply want caring parents to be able to make the best decisions for their children; decisions that we as legislators cannot anticipate or control from our comfortable green seats in this House. I would like to finish with this thought: acts of abuse and violence against children are already illegal. Unfortunately, enforcement of this illegal behaviour is patchy and frequently totally inadequate. This bill will succeed only in criminalising an act of parenting.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : Parenting, in my opinion—speaking as a parent—is the toughest job in the world. It is also the worst paid. It is the most difficult role; and I remember being a parenting expert—before I was a parent! I remember knowing how other people should bring up their children. I remember thinking very, very smugly, in my latte days: “I’d never let my child behave like that at a cafe.”, then a few years later having exactly that thing happen and knowing full well that I would just have to deal with it the best I could and get myself and my child out of there, so that I was not such a disruption to everyone else. I understand that smugness. I understand, as well, the feeling of most parents who say that they do their very best, because most parents do.

I have been listening to the debate tonight and it has been very reasoned and sensible. I would like to congratulate all the speakers on that. But what I have not been happy about has been the amount of emotional language used not just in this House but elsewhere. I have been visited by many well-paid, taxpayer-funded lobbyists who have talked to me about why it is that, apparently, I support child abuse—because I believe that we should not criminalise a parent who uses a light smack, with a hand, on a child’s bottom, once, as a form of discipline. I do not believe that that view is in the best interests of children.

I was also seriously disgusted to be approached yesterday by another lobbyist—at, no doubt, great taxpayer expense—and advised that I was therefore supporting child violation. How in the world could anybody with half a brain cell consider that a light smack on the bottom with a hand a violation of a child? That is, unfortunately, some of the language that has been used around the section 59 debate.

I have listened very carefully to the former teachers who have talked tonight about the fact that they used to strap children. They realised, once they were not allowed to, that they had to find other ways. I say: “Good on them!”, because I suffered from a teacher who, every chance she could, would get a ruler out and slap me—and I have to say I was the most strapped child in standard 2. Frankly, I was rather proud of it, at the time. But, leaving that to one side, I think we need to say there is a huge difference between the responsibilities of a teacher and the responsibilities of a parent—a huge difference. We do not expect our teachers to love our children. We do not expect our teachers to go the extra yard for our children; we expect them to be teachers. We do not expect them to mortgage their homes so they can give our children what they need. We do not expect to go without for our children. We do expect that from our parents.

I am not one of those people who believe that parents have a God-given right to discipline. I do, however, believe that parents have a God-given responsibility to their child. I believe that is the most robust relationship there is. When I looked today at the Unicef report, yet again I saw that the countries with the very best relationships between children and their families and between children and their peers—every single one of the top eight countries—allow a defence of reasonable force, or words similar to that. What that says to me is that those kids want to be with their parents. I am one of the people in this House who can remember being slapped—on only two occasions, because that was all I needed—by a parent. I got the message, and did not do it again.

But, of course, the children whom we are most concerned about are those children whose parents do not give them a light slap on the bottom with a hand. We are most concerned about the children who are killed and the children who are seriously emotionally damaged by their parents. I ask members to think about themselves as children, and what it must be like to be called stupid, ugly, fat, or unwanted. All of those names can be, and are routinely, used against children, and every single one of those names will hurt a child significantly more than one slap on the bottom.

This bill will change nothing. This bill will allow emotional abuse. It will, for instance, still allow a mother or a father involved in a custody dispute over a child to say to the child: “Your other parent can’t see you this weekend because they don’t love you.” What is worse for the child? Instead this bill will criminalise parents who are good parents. It will criminalise parents who, in fact, do their very best—around 83 percent of those parents who have replied to polls. Those 83 percent of parents have said they have slapped their child on the bottom with a hand. None of this will help those children whom we know are killed by parents or caregivers—people who should know significantly better.

I believe the police when they say to me that the police will prosecute parents who smack their child with a light smack on the bottom. I have had people say that that will not happen, but I tell them it will. If the police arrest someone, they will generally prosecute. There is a reason for that: if they do not prosecute, they end up getting sued for wrongful arrest. That is why they do it. I hate to talk practicalities amongst all the fluffy words that we would like to think about on this issue, but people get picked on in this society. People who are poor, people who are brown, and people who are at the bottom of the socio-economic heap will be the people who suffer the most from this legislation.

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

JUDITH COLLINS: As I was mentioning before the dinner break, the people who are most at risk from this legislation being passed are the poor, the brown, the people who are often marginalised, the people who are picked on in society, and the people who are easy prey to the State. Those are the people who are most likely to be arrested and prosecuted. Recently, I met with Pacific families and Pacific New Zealanders who told me how concerned they were that this legislation would condemn them. These are good parents who are very deeply committed to their children. They are parents whose children are going very well at school and who will be good citizens of New Zealand. They feel at risk.

There has been a lot of talk in the media about just how at risk they will be. Let us just look at a few situations. The police have said absolutely categorically that if they are advised that a child has been smacked, they will investigate, and if they find that a crime has been committed—which, on the face of it, it will have been—they will prosecute. They have to do so, for various reasons. One reason for that is that if they do not, they will open themselves up to a charge of wrongful arrest. They have seen many instances of that situation, so they have learnt to prosecute. The second reason is that if we say the police will use discretion, then we are in fact giving to the police a discretion that generally they do not have and do not use, because in giving to the police this overall discretion over whether to investigate or take any action, we are saying to them in these situations that they can choose whether they prosecute over something that is, on the face of it, an assault.

I believe absolutely that the people who will be most disempowered are those who are already disempowered. What will be the result for those children? It will be that they will have a parent with a criminal conviction for assault on a child. The result will be that they may well be removed from their homes because the parent has a conviction for criminal assault on a child. The result for that child may well be that that child is placed in a far less safe environment than he or she was in his or her own home. The result may will be a completely dysfunctional family at the end of the day; we have, in fact, not helped the situation.

Parents need to be given alternatives. Those are the reasons that I completely support the amendment of my colleague Chester Borrows. Chester Borrows is bringing forward an amendment that is sensible and that makes very, very plain that repeated smacking is not OK, but that a light smack on the bottom of a child by way of discipline will not result in prosecution. This is, after all, not a House where we should be indulging in social engineering. This is a House of law. This is where laws are made. We do not make laws for the purpose of not having them obeyed. I believe that it is an absolutely fundamental purpose of this Parliament that when we make laws we expect them to be obeyed; we do not tell the police not to bother prosecuting because we do not really mean them to do so.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) : I know, and other members do, of course, that we do not want the State intruding into people’s homes. But, of course, we do it every day, to protect people. We do it when we protect Mum from being hit by Dad. We do it when we set limits on the use of violence against children. The change I want to see is for the limit to that violence to be set at zero. That is no more of an intrusion in the home than we already make.

Someone in my electorate who was against this Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill has been sending out an email letter comparing my support for the bill to the actions of the Nazi State as an example of intrusion into the home. That person even wrote the following to my constituents: “The fact that Ms Bradford and Mr Anderton have both had children who committed suicide elicits our sympathy. However, their very sad misfortune does not by any means make them experts at bringing up their children.”

What a sad and sick way to promote one’s cause. That is the hysterical extent that people will go to in order to defend their right to hit children. Well, they could not have picked a less favourable example for their cause. The root of Nazism and of all hatred is the use of violence and bullying by one group of people who feel they have a moral claim higher than those of others. Without violence, hatred cannot flourish, and that is a strong reason why we should strip violence out of our homes.

I will address the people who turn to scripture and recite misplaced lines such as “Spare the rod and spoil the child”. I caution anyone about trying to set the quality of his or her faith above that of others. The message in scripture is, of course, not literal; it is much more powerful, more eternal, more meaningful, and more encompassing than that. The message is that humans should love one another. Violence is not loving, and can never be loving. I am not in the practice of reciting articles of faith in this House, but anyone who seeks to invoke the name of the teachings of Jesus in the cause of beating children has not understood Jesus’ message.

Time and time again in recent years I have come to this Chamber and asked the House to protect our young people. Time and time again I have heard this House mouth platitudes about the importance of protecting our young, and then declining the opportunity to do so when it is presented to it. Time and time again this House has exposed young New Zealanders to risks that we know will harm them. Now we are being asked again. Now we are once more deciding whether this House will stand up for young people and protect those whom we can protect. We are being asked to stop violence against children. We are being asked to send the message that our children should not be hit or brutalised, and there is no room for equivocation here.

I will vote for the amended bill because it is the best way to ensure that we make some progress, but I say quite strongly that I would support a straight repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act if that were before the House now. This House should be sending the strongest and clearest message that we will not condone physical violence against children. Repealing section 59 would send the strongest possible message that it is not OK to hit and beat children.

I believe in the persuasive power of this House, otherwise I would not have been here for as long as I have. I believe that changing the law can help to change antisocial attitudes. When I voted for homosexual law reform in the 1980s—and the supporters of that initiative were right—I believed our social attitudes changed. I believe that when we passed the antinuclear legislation, we made our proud moral stance a cause that all New Zealanders could be proud of. I believe we have a responsibility to lead public attitudes now.

Leadership is something that this House has a poor record of when it comes to protecting our young. This House declined to show leadership over the drinking age, when members knew that the very young had every access to alcohol and that the results were causing mayhem. This House refused to show leadership when it made prostitution a career option for young people. This House is again failing in its duty to show leadership, because this bill has been watered down and still allows children to be hit.

It is against the law for Dad to hit Mum. Why is it not against the law for Dad to hit the kids? There is no reasonable force defence for Dad hitting Mum—one cannot use that. Why should there be a reasonable force defence for hitting children, who arguably have even less ability to defend themselves? It is one law for all. I support one law for all—one law that says no hitting. Loving parents will still be able to change their children’s nappies when their children are struggling against them.

This House has some double standards. We had a privileges case brought against Winston Peters for giving John Banks a shove. He was to be arrested for assault, and Lord knows what else, in this House. It was a rather mild form of assault, too—and I was involved in it, I must say, as a witness. But, for goodness’ sake, we are not talking about a mild shove in the corridors of Parliament; we are talking about the example we are asked to give in terms of the law of what one can or cannot do with the kids.

This bill will still enable parents to stop their kids from running out on to the road. They will not be able to beat their children with a stick, with their belts, or with their fists—nor should they. Our community used to tolerate men hitting women. I lived in that community; I was in a house like that. Thankfully, attitudes have changed—although with some people that I hear, I doubt it—but our community still tolerates adults hitting children. It is time for that attitude to change, too. A change in the law will bring that about. The law has never supported the use of violence between adults—never. It is time for violence to be removed from the home altogether. It is time to send a message that physical discipline for children is unacceptable.

I believe that New Zealand has one of the best records in the world in respecting international conventions. When the world looks around at the most humane, most lawful, most civilised countries in the world, I want to stand up and proudly say that our law is faultless. But our treatment of children is a glaring scar on us. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international standard setting out the way we should treat our children. Until section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed, we cannot comply with it.

International law and international conventions are a friend to New Zealand. They are the only tool we have to repel bullying and “might is right”. If we want to thrive as a small, proud, independent, and sovereign nation, then we should and must respect international law and conventions with every tool we have. So our breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child tears at the fabric of our respect for international law. Just as an assault against one of us, adult or child, is an assault against all of us—which is why we prosecute as a society and do not leave remedies to civil courts any more—so too a breach of the convention is an assault against all the authority of international conventions that we ask others to respect.

I want us to raise healthy adults, and I want them raised in a culture of respect, care, and protection for our young. Time and time again this House has declined the opportunity to step in and protect our young when we could have. I say that we must not let them down again. Let us not send a message that violence and physical discipline against children is OK. I am disappointed, as I have said, that we are not going to pass the whole repeal of section 59 today, but I believe that the amendment makes sufficient progress and I will support it for that reason.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There will be no expressions of approval, disapproval, or otherwise from the gallery. Thank you.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : I rise to oppose the abolition of section 59 of the Crimes Act, and I oppose it absolutely. I am angry that despite the input of 1,700 submitters, the skills of the Crown Law Office, and a huge desire by all MPs in this House to do something to stop the terrible abuse of children in our country, not one child will be safer, happier, or even better off if this legislation is passed. This bill is flawed. It is a cop-out that we have created just to show that we are trying to do something. In an attempt to pussyfoot around an issue that has polarised the people of New Zealand, the Labour-Green majority on the Justice and Electoral Committee has produced a bill that is an untidy jumble of words, that confuses rather than clarifies, and that threatens to criminalise rather than support parents who are responsible for the protecting and nurturing of our children. This is not the way to look after our kids; it is not the way to strengthen families; and it is not the way to break the cycle of violence in our homes.

Supporters of the bill talk of the importance of using this legislation to send a strong message to the community that using physical force to correct children is not OK, and they believe that if that message gets through, child abuse will miraculously stop. I do not follow this logic. The beating, bashing, and abuse of kids is already illegal under the existing section 59 and is abhorred by all New Zealanders. The anti - child abuse message is already strong in our communities and it is still not getting through to the right people. Do we really think they will respond to a change of wording in a piece of legislation in Wellington?

Let us be very clear about this bill. It legislates against the smacking of children, only at a level below that of reasonable force. It does not even attempt to deal with the main factors that lead to child abuse. The latest Unicef report identified poverty, stress, family breakdown, and drug and alcohol abuse as the primary factors contributing to child abuse—not smacking. When we analyse the behaviour of the countries that have the best record in terms of looking after children, and the lowest child abuse death rates, six out of the top 10 allow smacking. So just how closely are smacking and child abuse linked?

We are debating this bill for the very best of reasons. We are debating this bill because the people who care about kids, and we as politicians, are so concerned and shocked about the level of child abuse in New Zealand that we want to do something about it. But passing this legislation as it stands is not the answer. When we began debating the bill I was hopeful we could make a difference. Just having the discussion has been worthwhile, because it has proved that despite the passion and robustness of the argument, philosophically all submitters had a lot in common. Whether they were individuals, child experts, voluntary organisations, the police, or Government departments, they came to submit because they were concerned about the welfare of kids.

I think every submission made the point that there is too much violence in our society and it erupts far too often. The sadness and hopelessness we all feel when we read of another child-abuse death quite rightly shocks, hurts, and angers us. Equally, the vast majority of submitters understood that kids need good parenting if they are going to do well. They realise that being a good parent is a very difficult job and that parents have to be encouraged and supported. There was also agreement that kids needed boundaries to feel safe and secure, and that there were many strategies and parenting methods that could be used to educate, discipline, and control kids.

And that is where the agreement came to an abrupt halt and all debate focused on just one of the many methods of parenting control—the smack. Instinctively we all know that repetitive physical violence and abuse are very bad for children. Research confirms that, but it also shows that occasional light smacking does not cause harm in healthy family relationships. Parenting gurus will tell us that smacking, unless fully discussed and explained, is not effective in the long term, but in the short term it works, and often parents find that that is just long enough to put other strategies in place. Research also tells us that children need those consistent boundaries, and often a light smack is what parents do to reinforce them.

Actually, only a very few submitters were prepared to be hard and fast and say that all smackers were criminals. Even Sue Bradford herself has said she does not want to see good parents criminalised—but that, unfortunately, is what this bill in its present form can do.

The debate on this bill is nothing to do with the philosophy of bringing up kids, and everything to do with the parenting strategies people use every day in their families. This is why the issue has become so emotive. What mandate does Parliament have to control or shape the very personal and very intimate relationship between parent and child? This relationship involves 24-hour, 7-day-a-week care and attention over many, many years. How do we devise a law that is relevant at all times, under all conditions, and in each and every circumstance? Logic says we cannot. Unless it is a really general statement, of course the law requires specifics if it is to be enforced.

Research and our own intuition tell us that the most critical factor in keeping a child safe and happy is its relationship with its parents and the quality of its family life. We need to have faith in families to encourage and support them. We need to embrace diversity in child-rearing methods, and we need to give good parents credit for using the right parenting strategies at the right time and in the right place. Parents have this understanding from knowing and loving their kids, and I believe that they absolutely understand the difference between smacking and child abuse.

The argument that using physical force to correct kids causes child abuse is as valid as the idea that just being able to drive a car causes dangerous smashes. We need to be more discerning. Even parenting experts cannot always agree on the best way to handle all kids.

So in conclusion, I believe that this bill is technically a poor piece of legislation. It cannot fulfil the expectations of its promoters. It does not address the issues that are identified as the core factors of child abuse, it restricts the options of parents, and it has the ability to criminalise good parents—the very people whom we need to rely on to provide a protective and nurturing environment for their kids. The bill has a very unhealthy, Goody Two-Shoes, Government-knows-best attitude, when every scrap of evidence on successful child-rearing indicates that happy homes and strong families are the best place for kids.

If we really want to do something about child abuse in this country we should be using every effort to support parenting programmes, and mentor families in the community, rather than bickering over a piece of legislation that bullies and threatens parents, and undermines their relationship with the very children we are trying to protect. In presenting this bill I believe we have failed the children of New Zealand—children like the Kāhui twins, the “Lillybings”, and the Coral Burrows. With all Parliament’s resources and the time and the energy that have gone into this bill, we should have been able to come up with something better.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : It is with pleasure that, as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I speak in support of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, as reported back to Parliament. I wish to congratulate Sue Bradford on her courage and commitment in introducing a member’s bill to this House to make better provision for our children to live in a safe and secure environment, free from violence. I give my thanks to the committee members, and to the hard-working staff and officials of the committee. We received 1,718 submissions and heard around 200 submitters, including parents, caregivers, young people, and representatives from organisations—some of whom had Judith Collins quaking in her boots. Every submitter who requested to be heard was heard.

I acknowledge the many individuals who made submissions on the bill, based on their own experience of raising their children and looking back on their childhood. For many, it was painful. I commend them for the courage it took to tell their stories. For some, the issue was the impact of violence on their young lives, and the ongoing effect of it on them as adults; for others, it was their regret for having hurt their own children. Then there were those parents who were genuinely fearful that they would be prosecuted for physically disciplining their children, and those who believed it was not only their right but also their responsibility to strike their children.

Many organisations spoke strongly in support of the bill. Barnardos, Plunket, EPOCH, the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, Save the Children, Unicef, the Families Commission, the Children’s Commissioner, and many others worked determinedly to advocate for, and educate about, the need for change—for support for our children, our families, and our communities. The Body Shop petition of Barry Thomas drew some 20,750 signatures in support of Sue Bradford’s bill. I am proud to say that the Waitakere City Council in my own region led the charge in speaking out in support of the bill, and it was followed by both the Auckland City Council and the Porirua City Council.

The bill has been dubbed the “Anti-Smacking Bill”. That trivialises the seriousness of the issue. It is not about introducing a prosecution. It is about removing a legal defence, not about introducing a prosecution—a defence that has seen serious violence against our children deemed to be reasonable and seen parents not held accountable for their violent behaviour. Opponents claim that such cases are rare. To me, that is unacceptable. Do we really want to stand by while our children are at risk in that way? In the type of case in which charges are laid, people who have violently abused their children, such as by beating them with a piece of wood, a belt, or a riding crop, have used section 59 of the Crimes Act to successfully defend their actions. The majority of New Zealanders are appalled at such actions.

Most New Zealand parents are good parents and want to do their best for their children’s welfare and safety. However, the recent Unicef report has highlighted the fact that some of our children are amongst the least safe in the Western World. Our country leads in many ways—with the first women to get the vote, our nuclear-free policy, and our commitment to addressing climate change—but, on the issue of our children’s safety and well-being, we are lagging behind other Western World nations. We must work together to change that.

It is said that it takes a village to raise a child, and this Government is proud to support the many community organisations throughout New Zealand that help parents to raise happy, healthy children who are able to reach their full potential. The education and public awareness programmes that promote positive parenting have been adopted by many thousands of parents, community groups, and educational groups throughout this country. The SKIP programme—which, for the benefit of those who do not know this, is Strategies with Kids - Information for Parents—is a fine example of that. As a select committee member, I say it was great to hear from so many parents and organisations about the effectiveness of that programme. Our Government has invested—and very happily invested—$10.8 million over 3 years to establish the SKIP programme, and we will continue to provide an additional $14.8 million over the next 4 years to enable the programme to continue. Raising children is the most valuable job in our society, and providing education and support to families is a vital job of the Government.

While considering this bill, the committee noted the high level of public interest stimulated by the possible repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act and was concerned that there was widespread misunderstanding about the bill’s potential effect. There was a view that parents would be criminalised for disciplining their children, and the situation was not helped by a deliberate scaremongering and misinformation campaign by opponents to the bill. For the sake of clarity, the select committee requested assistance from the Law Commission in drafting changes to the bill to ensure its intention was clear and to address parents’ concerns. In doing so, the majority of the select committee did not want to undermine the effects of positive parenting programmes.

The changes suggested by the commission, and agreed by the majority of the select committee, encapsulated a new title and purpose clause, and a substituted section 59 that clarifies when it is acceptable for parents to use reasonable force: in situations such as protecting a child from harm, providing normal daily care, and preventing harm from being done to others. Those amendments ensure the bill gives assurance to good parents. I thank the Law Commission for its invaluable advice on this matter.

In addition, the select committee was advised that the police would not actively solicit reports on the use of force against children, as there are safeguards. The Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines that are in place ensure parents will not be prosecuted for minor acts of violence. As the legislation is now, the police are obliged to follow up any reports they receive, but such reports do not require significant investigation. Currently if a child is sent to his or her room, that constitutes kidnapping under section 209 of the Crimes Act, but the police do not prosecute parents for that, any more than they prosecute high-profile rugby players for hitting a team-mate with a handbag. I believe the select committee report and amendments balance the need to make sure that good and caring parents are supported whilst ensuring that children are absolutely protected from abuse.

Legislation like that in this bill is not uncommon. Fifteen countries have introduced similar legislation, and a number of others are looking at the problem at this point in time. I was disappointed to hear Chester Borrows and Judith Collins—who was quaking in her boots at people terrifying her—refer to interest groups in such a derogatory way. Those organisations are New Zealand institutions and leaders in the care of our children—hardly radical. It may be that because they dared to be critical of an amendment that undermined and counteracted their good work as they strive to support our families, both parents and children, the Opposition took that stance. In dog training, trainers now advocate that the use of violence is counteractive and harmful to dogs being able to reach their full potential. There is no section 59 for puppies. There is no Chester Borrows’ amendment, prescribing the level of violence that is OK. Do we see the police marauding and going around arresting dog owners?

I support this bill, and I commend my Labour colleagues and other speakers in this House from other parties who have committed themselves to ensuring that our youngest and most vulnerable citizens are safe and secure.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : I give my wholehearted support to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill for the full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, as, in fact, do all of our Green MPs. I congratulate my colleague Sue Bradford on the hard work, the persistence, and the determination that she has shown in getting it this far—even in the face, today, of death threats. I acknowledge and thank other speakers tonight who have supported the bill, for some very supportive, and in some cases, very moving speeches: Mark Burton; Brian Donnelly, who gave us a lot of facts stemming from his experiences as a schoolteacher, which I thought were a very valuable contribution to the debate; Tariana Turia, whose heart is clearly with us; Jim Anderton, who gave a moving speech; and Lynne Pillay, who did great work as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee and who has been so forceful in her support just now.

Non-violence is one of the four core principles on which the Green Party is founded. We believe that non-violence, if it is to prevent war and international destruction, has to start in the family, in the home, in the school, and in the community, if it is to flow through to between nations. This bill is just part of a very long process of trying to build a non-violent society.

I will tell three stories tonight from personal experience; I think most of the academic arguments have been made. I will tell stories about three children—one of them was me. All of the stories have the theme that if beating a child seems to work because it changes the child’s behaviour, is anybody asking why and is anybody asking what is going on in the mind of that child at the time?

My father was a schoolteacher of the old school and he believed in the strap—not child abuse, nothing illegal—but he believed that one did not use it often, but when one did, one used it really hard. Part of the punishment were the words “go and get me the strap”. So I would go and get the instrument of my own beating, bring it back, and get a thrashing. I want to focus on what that did to me. The fact that it hurt is neither here nor there; it was completely not the point, it does not matter. But did I feel sorry for what I had done? Never. Did I feel remorseful? Did I think: “Oh, that was naughty, I’d better not do that again.”? Never. Did I decide to change my behaviour? Only to ensure that next time I did not get caught. What did I feel? I felt resentment, I felt anger, I felt humiliation, and I felt a determination to get even. Is that the sort of reaction that we want to provoke in our children? I would suggest that it is actually quite counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve in hitting a child.

When I had children myself, the instinct carried over and my first reaction when I got furious with them—as one does with children—was that I wanted to hit them. I made a decision early on that I was not going to do that, and it was a task of a number of years to actually train myself not to hit the kids when I was angry but to use the other methods that I knew could be used. Most of the time, I succeeded in that. But because one’s own conditioning carries over when one grows up, it took quite a lot of effort.

The second story I want to tell is about a father and his 2-year-old daughter who were visiting my home many years ago. She was engrossed in what she was doing and did not really take any notice of her father when he asked her to do something. So he said: “Come here, I’m going to smack you.” Of course, a 2-year-old being told she is going to get smacked does not “come here”, so the demands continue: “Come here. If you do not come here right now, you’re going to get a real thrashing.” When she finally did come, it had worked up to such a point—for a really, really, small error in the first place—that he put her over his knee and really walloped her on the bottom. Now that was just a smacking. That is what most of the opponents of this bill think is perfectly normal and parents should be able to do. I looked at why that child’s behaviour changed and it was fear. I looked at the fear in her eyes as she looked at her father and I asked myself whether we want to discipline our children by making them so afraid of us that they cannot think for themselves and they just act out of fear.

The third story is about another 2-year-old with his father. This is much more recent. Two-year-olds can be very trying. They have temper tantrums; they are testing the boundaries all the time. They do things like picking up their dinner and throwing it around the walls. If one can manage to persuade oneself not to laugh—which is important—something has to be done. As soon as that behaviour starts, this particular father says: “No, it’s time you sat on the naughty mat.” The naughty mat is in the corner of the room, and if the child does not go of his own free will, he is picked up firmly, without violence, sat on the naughty mat with his back to the rest of the room where he cannot see people, and held there until he calms down. At the end of that time there are usually tears, cuddles, and reconciliation. I have never seen that child express fear of his father, but he is a much better behaved child than the one I witnessed many years ago.

This is not about opposing discipline. It is not about having no boundaries on children’s behaviour. Children need firm boundaries. They need to know where the limits are, and those limits must be enforced. But it is about enforcing those boundaries in a non-violent way. It is about enforcing them with respect for that child as an individual in his or her own right.

If we want to build a non-violent society, we know that after this bill becomes law parents will need help to change the sort of discipline they use. I can imagine that it could be quite hard for a parent of an 8 or 9-year-old who has always thrashed the child to suddenly start disciplining that child without thrashing it. It is important that we provide opportunities and information for parents on how to change their methods of discipline to fit in with the new expectations that society has that that they do not use thrashings. The Greens will do everything we can to support that change in society and to support and encourage parents to use the many techniques that are available to set firm boundaries for children without beating the daylights out of them.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) : I rise to speak to this bill, one of two Easter trading bills that were brought before the Commerce Committee, of which I was a member, last year. That committee was ably led by Katherine Rich. Both bills enjoyed support from across the House. We worked together with Maryan Street and Shane Jones to bring both bills before the House this evening. We are bringing two bills that I believe can be well debated and well considered as we go forward to try to solve the anomalies that have existed with this legislation over many, many years.

As I said, there are two similar bills. The one I will speak to tonight is the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill, nicknamed the “Jacqui Dean Bill”. The second bill is the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, the “Steve Chadwick Bill”. The intent of the bill we are now debating is to liberalise shop trading on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, as opposed to liberalising shop trading purely on Easter Sunday, as provided for in the Steve Chadwick bill. The bill tonight provides for a partial exemption from the requirements under the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 to be closed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday for shops located in two visitor districts—namely, Tauranga and Wānaka. The bill specifies that the shops can open from 10 a.m. in the morning until 5 p.m.

Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I see that this bill is set down in the name of the member Jacqui Dean, who is present in the Chamber. I am confused as to why the member for Napier is speaking on this bill when it is in the name of another member.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for raising that. It should be obvious to you, but Jacqui Dean was not here when the bill was called and any member can move it on her behalf. There will be no further comment on that, thank you.

CHRIS TREMAIN: I am always keen to take the opportunity to stand and speak in the House, and I am pleased to continue at this point in time to make sure we debate this important legislation tonight.

There was much demand from other regions around the country, including from my own electorate, Napier, to be included in the Jacqui Dean bill and for their shops to be allowed to trade between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. As a result, shops located in the district of a territorial authority specified in schedule 2 of this bill will be granted an exemption from the requirements in the principal Act to be closed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. It was beyond the scope of the bill to provide a nationwide exemption, and that is why we have allowed for the schedule and for all the territorial authorities to be provided for in the first instance. Each territorial authority is listed in the schedule, and at a later date—either in the Committee of the whole House or by amending legislation—a territorial authority may apply to be exempted from that schedule.

The Steve Chadwick bill seeks to liberalise Easter Sunday only in the sense of allowing territorial authorities the authority to decide whether shops in their districts remain open on Easter Sunday. In that situation, those authorities should be able to consult their communities on this matter, using the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

As I said, the committee was ably led by our chair, Katherine Rich, and we had Chris Auchinvole, Pansy Wong, and, indeed, Jacqui Dean speaking on the bill. But in considering both bills, we were also joined by Shane Jones, Winnie Laban, Charles Chauvel, Gordon Copeland, and Maryan Street from the other side of the House, who sought to point out some common features in both bills, particularly with regard to employee rights and to the leases applying to shops in shopping malls, which may have been forced to open under a wider agreement.

There are two strong sides to the debate, which we saw in the submissions that came before the House. In submissions arguing for the bill we see the importance of tourism, with advocates for the tourism industry saying that their industry operates 365 days of the year, and that we need to account for that fact. There were arguments around economic opportunities. Businesses have invested a heck of a lot into their businesses and they need every opportunity to trade to make sure that the return on their investment is maximised.

There were submissions from towns like Wānaka, where employment opportunities were key to shops catering to overseas tourists or visitors working in New Zealand. People operating those businesses wanted to work over those weekends so they could service the community of Wānaka. There are regional events such as Wings over Wānaka, whose organisers put in a submission arguing that local shops should be allowed to trade on that particular day.

Another reason is the anomaly in the existing legislation. For instance, down in Wānaka there was an exemption for some shops like those attached to petrol stations, which could sell magazines quite legally, but the Dymocks bookshop down the road was unable to do that. There are anomalies with regard to the location of shops within particular districts, as well. In Wānaka again, the back door of one shop was unable to trade on Easter Sunday, but the shop was able to trade through its other door, which is somewhat ludicrous. Also, there is the anomaly of areas such as Wānaka versus Queenstown, whereby in one situation shopkeepers could trade in Queenstown, but just down the road in Wānaka, shops were unable to trade.

Another submission cited the ludicrous audit procedures from the Department of Labour. We had submissions coming in from some shop owners who had been audited and who had to go though and count particular items in an audit in order to list what had been illegally traded on that particular day.

Lastly, submitters supporting the bill did so through a straight-out belief in freedom of choice. Neither bill makes trading compulsory, but right now, shops have the freedom of choice to trade on 51 Sundays out of 52 in the year and, by shops using that freedom of choice, there are already many businesses that choose not to trade on Sunday because the people operating them want to observe Sunday for religious reasons and they choose not to trade on that day. They have the choice anyway, and, legally, they are able to trade.

The arguments against the bill came through pretty loud and clear, as well. Firstly, the submissions cited family community time. Given the number of days that shops are open now, many families asked for that time to be protected and ensconced in law. The second point in submissions against the bill was the protection of employees. It was argued that employees have employment contracts, and it was asked how, if the law changed now, they would they be able to fight for a right to not work on a Sunday, if they did not want to work on that particular Sunday. So while working on this legislation the committee has spent a lot of time making sure that employees’ rights are protected, so they can front up to the owners of their businesses and say they do not want to work on that particular day.

A very strong theme in submissions against the bill was religious reasons. Many church groups oppose trading on the grounds of their religious beliefs, and we have heard that throughout the submissions.

I will now focus on a submission from Napier, which is my own electorate. The Napier City Council put in a strong submission for the bill based on a number of key reasons, and I will go through that now. Firstly, tourism is a key industry in Napier and is continuing to grow in importance—[Interruption]—as Dr Cullen would realise. Napier City Council is a part of many tourism events, such as the concerts at the Mission, which happen just around the corner from him. The art deco days are another tourism attraction. Tourism is becoming increasingly important, particularly with the likes of British American Tobacco, PDL Electronics, and Medallion Foods closing down. It is important that we focus on tourism in our city.

Napier’s inner city was one of the first regional shopping areas to introduce 7-day shopping each week. It is already very strongly supported, as Dr Cullen knows. I am sure that quite regularly he goes into Emerson Street and enjoys a latte. I am not sure whether that is his coffee of choice, but I am sure he goes there on a Sunday morning, enjoys a quiet coffee, and enjoys the fact that those shops are open.

The other point Dr Cullen will be very aware of is the number of cruise ships that come into Napier now, and cruise ships have come in over Easter and continue to do so. The member will know that the number of cruise ships coming into Napier continues to rise every year, and the cruise ships are getting bigger and better each year. When we see 3,000-odd people coming into the port on those days, it is important that we show them a strong shopping centre that they can come and shop in.

The other point the Napier City Council raised was about tourism services that are already able to open, such as the swimming baths and the aquarium. There is an anomaly in that those services are able to open on Easter Sunday, but on the other side of the coin, many of the shops that support those businesses are unable to open. Again, as Dr Cullen would be aware, there is the anomaly between Taupō and Napier. Taupō shops are able to open on Easter Sunday, but Napier shops are unable to.

In summary, there is strong debate between the two sides of the House on this issue. It has been before the House for many years, and it is something I think will be brought to a head with this bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member care to move, on behalf of Jacqui Dean, that the bill be read a second time.

CHRIS TREMAIN on behalf of Jacqui Dean (National—Otago): I move, That the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) : Indeed, we finally have a question before the House, at the end of the member’s speech. I suppose one thing that I should note about that speech, since the member chose to light upon Napier at some length, is that I do believe that those who are engaged in such a great deal of phone canvassing and pamphlet distribution on his behalf—that is to say, the Exclusive Brethren—will be somewhat disappointed by his voting record on this Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill. Mr Tremain’s speech to move Easter Sunday trading—almost the second speech he has given in the House—will come as a terrible shock to the Exclusive Brethren of Hawke’s Bay, who spent a great deal of time on the telephone lines, attacking the Labour Party as being godless and goodness knows what else. That was about as good as we were, as far as the Exclusive Brethren were concerned.

I have voted in favour of Easter trading on a number of occasions, but I will be voting against this bill for a number of reasons, and I will make clear why. First of all, this issue has come before this House on any number of occasions. On every occasion my friends associated with the industrial wing of the labour movement and my somewhat lesser friends from the religious movement in New Zealand have entered into an interesting coalition in order to defeat moves in favour of Easter Sunday trading, in particular. I will deal with Good Friday later; I think that is a somewhat different kind of issue.

The reality, however, is that, clearly, New Zealanders, by and large, actually support Easter Sunday trading because, given the chance to do so, they go and trade on Easter Sundays. People vote by going to the shops, and every Easter Sunday we have the somewhat farcical situation where some shops open and are subject to the penalties of the law. People wonder quite why we continue to carry on in the way that we do in that particular respect. I do not think that when we have reached the point where the public clearly does not regard the law as sensible in respect of Easter Sunday, it makes sense for us to continue to vote as if those views no longer really have any great meaning at all. That is not to denigrate those who hold very strong views, particularly on religious grounds, about the significance of Easter Sunday, and I will come back to that point a little bit later on.

The issue around workers’ protection is, of course, a crucial issue. It is absolutely crucial that nobody who holds strong religious convictions about the significance of Easter Sunday or Good Friday should be forced to work on that day. I think it is very appropriate that the Commerce Committee has put into both bills very strong protections in that regard, because I think it would be quite against strongly held feelings of conscience for some workers to be placed in the position of having to work on that day. In terms of the general issue around workers’ conditions being protected on such a day, of course, there is the anomaly around the fact that Easter Sunday alone, of all the days that we think of as being a public holiday, is not, in fact, a public holiday, and that has implications around the position of workers. Perhaps we might want to consider at some later point how we might rectify that particular position, should either of these bills pass through the House. I think it would be appropriate to do that to ensure further worker protections in that respect.

I have been consistently in favour of the bill because, generally speaking, I favour liberal laws around shop trading hours in any case. It is very interesting that the United States, which is a very, very much more religious society than New Zealand and which is a country where regular church attendance is very, very much higher than it is in New Zealand, generally speaking has much more liberal shop trading rules than New Zealand does, including a number of days that nobody in this House would suggest should be open slather in terms of shop trading, and we do not seem to find that inconsistent with the dominant Christian beliefs of the United States. I think, however, it is true that most of us would—perhaps illogically, but then most of us are illogical at some point or other in our lives—draw a distinction between Good Friday and Easter Sunday in terms of the depths of religiosity that surrounds those two particular days. One of those days is so absolutely central to the story of Christianity, which, although it is not our State religion, is certainly so crucial to our story for most of us in this nation as a people. I say this as a person who comes from a very long secular tradition. I proudly exited from my secondary school as the only baptised Anglican who was not a confirmed Anglican, which took some degree of doing given the level of pressure that came on to be confirmed as an Anglican during those 5 years, along with my record in not achieving any kind of status in the cadet corps. But those are my two proudest achievements in my 5 years at that school. There are a few other bits and pieces along the way, but in recollection they pale into insignificance compared with those two particular things, which says something about where I stand and where I come from.

But when we face the two bills I think we face an interesting issue. At some point one or other of these bills has to pass. At the end of the day it does not make any sense for both of them to be passed, because if they are both passed it will be rather strange. I understand that Jacqui Dean has indicated that she is prepared to move amendments to remove Good Friday from this bill at the Committee stage. Nevertheless, the bill we are dealing with at the moment has both Good Friday and Easter Sunday. The other bill deals only with Easter Sunday.

The reason why I will be voting against Jacqui Dean’s bill and in favour of Steve Chadwick’s bill, in particular, is because of the structure of the two bills—where they actually come from in terms of their structure. If we go through the Jacqui Dean bill, we see that it bears rather too much the pains of its birth, in the sense that it went into a select committee to provide for limited opening on Good Friday and Easter Sunday in two places in the country, and came out of the select committee providing for full opening on Good Friday and Easter Sunday—the bill provides not just for 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. opening but open slather on Good Friday and Easter Sunday—effectively across the whole of the country by the rather artificial device of tacking on additions to the current very odd rules around visitor centres, which no longer bear any great logic anyway. We say that some places are visitor centres and others, which, like Rotorua, clearly are, somehow or other are not covered within the current legislation. Napier, which is not so much a visitor centre at Easter, has its big visitor period during February with three weekends in a row: the Mission Estate Winery Concert, the wine weekend, and the art deco weekend. Nevertheless, we have hopes of becoming a more continuous visitor centre during the year. As Mr Tremain rightly said, we are getting more of the cruise ship traffic through the city, and it seems strange that when people come in a cruise ship on Easter Sunday, the entire city is closed except for a few bits and pieces around the place. That does not make sense.

But a bill that, when one reads through it and imposes it upon the original legislation, actually says that shops will be closed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday in all these places except for those listed in the schedule, which includes every territorial district in the country, is not good legislation. It is just a bad thing for Parliament to pass a bill that is so illogically structured as that bill actually is. On the other hand, Steve Chadwick’s bill says that shops may open on Easter Sunday if the local authority decides that they should, subject to the consultation processes in the Local Government Act 2002. That means, then, that before that decision is taken, the local people have a right to be consulted around that—I think that is a good thing—so that localities can make their own choices in that regard. It is an exercise of direct democracy. And then shops can be open if that decision is made. I am sure that in an area such as Napier the decision will be taken that the shops will be able to be open. Perhaps Hastings may go first and we will follow afterwards, which has happened in other areas of shopping in relation to our two cities—

Chris Tremain: And Havelock North.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Well, Havelock North maybe, but it might be regarded as more for the workers if the shops open. Havelock North will remain closed so that the working-class areas of Hastings and Napier will remain open, and “not in my backyard” will operate rather nicely in Havelock North.

So my view, given that at the end of the day, the House has to pass one bill or the other, is that—although in the absence of Steve Chadwick’s bill with its structure I would actually vote for this bill, despite what I think are some fairly strange structures—it does not make sense to me to vote for it at this point. As Leader of the House I am particularly conscious that it will be quite difficult to pass either bill before Easter. Even though they may not be able to come into effect at least it will be a clear signal if they get through before Easter—at least, probably only one of these bills can possibly proceed through to passage before Easter because of other business in front of the House. For those reasons, although normally I vote always in favour of liberalisation of shop trading hours, I will be voting against the Jacqui Dean bill and in favour of the Steve Chadwick bill.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : Before the battle commences—as I am sure it is about to do; I can see my colleagues over the other side of the House winding themselves up to enter the fray—I just want to take a moment to apologise to the House for not being here earlier today to speak to my own bill. I thank Chris Tremain for stepping in so well for me. Just to pray for an apology, I was detained on a personal matter.

Having got that out of the way, let us let the games begin by acknowledging that the issue of Easter trading will always be and has always been utterly, utterly contentious. I am acutely aware that I am just one in a long line of members of Parliament seeking a reform of legislation around Easter trading—seeking to bring some sense into the Groundhog Day situation of retailers being prosecuted every year, year after year, for opening their doors on Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

The arguments against the reform of the legislation have not changed much, either. They range from freedom to trade, to have a choice of when to open one’s doors for business—

Mark Blumsky: You still pay rent on your lease!

JACQUI DEAN: —yes, whether or not one’s doors are shut—to the economic benefits that one might get out of trading over Easter, versus concern to acknowledge a religious festival, arguments of preservation of family life and preservation of just a few holidays in the working year, and, indeed, arguments that traverse protection of workers. Each argument for or against the liberalisation of Easter trading has its merits, of course, and each argument needs to be taken into account when this House passes legislation.

What we have—we cannot run away from it, and we cannot ignore it—is a persistent call for liberalisation. Like it or not—some of us do; some of us do not—we have to deal with that. I am sponsoring this bill because the Wanaka Chamber of Commerce asked me to help it. The Wanaka Chamber of Commerce represents Wānaka retailers that trade over Easter and have done so for a number of years. Wānaka retailers trade over Easter because there is a huge demand for them to do so—largely because of the Warbirds over Wānaka International Air Show, which comes to Wānaka every second Easter and attracts up to 100,000 extra visitors to the Wakatipu Basin.

The hard part for the Wanaka Chamber of Commerce and its retailers is that just over the hill, in Queenstown, retailers have an exemption to trade, both on Good Friday and on Easter Sunday. So all the benefits go to Queenstown—where retailers can trade and have a good day scot-free—whereas year after year the Department of Labour prosecutes Wānaka retailers. It was telling that in the last round of prosecutions the judge when sentencing a particular retailer convicted him but declined to fine him, commenting that it was about time Parliament got its act into gear. This is why I am very pleased to be finally speaking to the House this evening.

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

I acknowledge the work put in by all members of the Commerce Committee when considering this bill and Steve Chadwick’s bill, the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. It was acknowledged by us that notwithstanding all the objections, the retail sector and many, many members of our society are looking to us for leadership. They are looking to us in Parliament for a solution to the anomalous situation we have now with Easter trading. I also acknowledge the large number of submitters who took the time to write and to speak on their submissions. My thanks go to them for the high-quality and well-reasoned suggestions that many of them made for a way forward in this difficult issue.

I acknowledge that for some people Easter trading is incompatible with the celebration of their faith. I acknowledge that some people feel that working over Easter cuts into family life. I would argue that no one is forced to go shopping, and no one is forced to work over Easter.

Hon Member: Yeah, right!

JACQUI DEAN: I thank the member for biting right on cue. Several unions are concerned at worker protection issues, and amendments to the bill in the select committee, from members right across the political spectrum, have resulted in several slight changes to both bills. No one can be forced to work over Easter and there can be no penalty for declining or refusing to work.

I also note that many retail workers are young and work part-time. They value the extra hours and the opportunity to earn extra money. I asked a lot of retailers in Wānaka about this issue, because it is an issue that we should all be concerned about. Retailers in Wānaka advised that they have no trouble finding people to work over Easter, and, generally, the young people who are working in the retail sector in tourism towns are those who work during the day so that they can party all night. I do not see terribly much wrong with that.

A number of historical privileges add to the anomalies and inherent unfairness of the shop trading legislation as it stands. Picton and Queenstown have exemptions carried over from the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990. Both those towns can trade on Good Friday from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., with no other restrictions. Section 4(2)(a) of the Act provides that the general prohibition under section 3(1) of the Act does not apply to a shop being closed at any time, on any day, if “On the 31st day of July 1990 there was in force in respect of the area in which the shop is situated an order under section 20 of the repealed Act”. So these historical privileges exist for shops in Picton on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, in Queenstown on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, and in Taupō on Easter Sunday only, but not for other, similar tourism areas, such as Rotorua or Wānaka. In other words, it is a legislative dog’s breakfast, and an uneven playing field. We already have Good Friday and Easter Sunday trading, but not on a fair basis.

I turn to some changes I propose for the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill. The provision in this bill for a general exemption for Easter Sunday by way of a schedule remains unchanged. Schedule 2 contains a list of every territorial local authority. In effect, should this bill be passed it would become the business owner’s decision whether to open on Easter Sunday.

I want to signal a change to the bill that I will introduce as a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage should the bill pass its second reading. The general exemption applying to Good Friday would go. It would be replaced with the following: “The bill would enable a territorial authority to decide whether shops in its district may remain open on Good Friday if a significant event were occurring in the district on that day.” I believe that this is a much more focused approach. Only those districts like Wānaka, which holds Warbirds over Wānaka every second year, would be interested in applying for an exemption to trade on Good Friday. So what I am effectively doing is defining the scope of Good Friday right down to those areas that specifically want it. If Rotorua or Tauranga, for example, were planning a major event for the Easter weekend, and if their chamber of commerce supported it, they could apply to the city council for an exemption to trade on Good Friday. Wānaka would apply for an exemption only every second year, for the year that Warbirds over Wānaka is held.

It became obvious during the hearing of submissions on Easter trading that although there was broad support for liberalisation of trading on Easter Sunday, there was not the same level of support for Good Friday—although a number of submitters did indicate their support. Yet some credible solution needs to be found if we as a Parliament want to be seen as credible. We have the opportunity to get this legislation right. I would like to see the House send this bill through to the Committee stage. Thank you.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : I am pleased to be taking part in this debate, on a day when we have heard many speeches in an earlier debate about the importance of family. Quite frankly, if there is a bill that deals with that—in terms of knocking that very important aspect of our society—it is the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill.

I will read from the letter sent to all members of Parliament by the Catholic bishops, who represent a view held by many New Zealanders—not only those of the Christian faith but also many people who are interested in, and concerned about, families and the effect of work on them. What the bishops said in the letter was this: “Much has been written and spoken lately about the disintegration of family life with financial pressure being an important contributing factor. When parents are forced to work long hours at the expense of time spent with each other and with their children, we see children and young people who are left without the comfort and security of traditional family interaction. We don’t need to spell out the dire consequences that often result when young people look elsewhere for their support and for ways to spend their time. New Zealanders work some of the longest hours in the OECD countries. We believe the government should do more to promote a work/life balance. Extended shopping hours will not achieve it, but the few days when shop trading is restricted provide some opportunity to strengthen and develop this balance.”

Well, I will spell out the dire consequences that I believe come from the massive changes to the labour market and the rules we work under in this country over the last 15 to 20 years. I will do so by quoting from another report. This one is entitled From Wannabes to Youth Offenders: Youth Gangs in Counties Manukau. This is the research report that was done over about 6 or 7 months of last year as a response to several young people being killed in my community. If people do not want to take this issue seriously then they need to read this report to see why I take it extremely seriously. This is not a simple matter of some tourists on a boat being deprived of the right to shop on 2 or 3 days a year; it is about the disintegration of families, as talked about by the Catholic bishops and many other social commentators.

The report notes: “Parental disengagement: It was common for youth gang members to come from families with working parents, many of whom have multiple jobs. The majority of participants drew attention to extreme work-life imbalances experienced by parents who, in an effort to financially provide for their families, are under stress through long work hours and, as a result, are not able to engage with their children.” The report talks about the financial pressures that many of these families are under, and the indebtedness of them to the loan sharks who operate in our community.

Simple questions are raised by this legislation, such as where these shops that will be open will be. Under Jacqui Dean’s bill, they will be everywhere. They will not be just in the tourism areas; they will be everywhere. I noticed in the East Coast and Bays Courier recently an article about the Remuera shops. Some of the owners had just decided to open on Sundays. But I tell members that in the part of Auckland I live in, the shops have been opening 7 days a week for 24 hours a day, except for these 3½ days, for as long as the law has allowed them.

Who works in these shops? It is these low-paid workers—low-paid parents—whom I am talking about, and whom the Catholic bishops and the researchers into gang violence are talking about. They are the ones forced to work and be out there instead of at home with their family. They are the ones who get the finger pointed at them by the judges who say the law is wrong when it is enforced, and say: “I’m not going to fine this fellow because I think shops should be open.” That same judge probably gets some young guy in front of him the next day, whacks him round the ears, and gives him a severe penalty for breaking the law, which he did because he has not had the parental guidance that people say he should have.

That is the sort of nonsense that, in my view, backs up this shallow bill. It says we can just keep on liberalising and there will be no consequences. We have the consequences right now in my community, and it is spreading throughout this country. We get crocodile tears from people on that side of the House who talk about an underclass and families that are dysfunctional. Why do we have dysfunctional families in this country? Does it not coincide with the fact that we have liberalised our labour market so much that there are only 3½ days of the year that low-paid workers in the retail sector can have off to spend with their family?

Members should look at who most retail workers are. They are women. Yet, under this bill, will childcare facilities be required to open up to look after their kids? They are closed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. In fact, they are closed most weekends. I am ashamed to think we are now having to look at the idea of children’s hotels where people can drop off their kids 24/7 so that they can work.

I do not want to live in a society that thinks that is a positive, because I do not think it is a positive. I grew up in this country in the fortunate days when one parent went out to work and the other stayed at home and brought up the seven kids in our family. We were not wealthy; our father worked in low-paid jobs because he came from the Pacific Islands without an education. As a result of that upbringing, my generation came through with a support that today’s generation—my grandchild and many like him—do not get, because those kids are shoved into early childhood education at a very early stage.

This bill is just one more nail in the coffin for families, for the rights of workers, and for the ability of families to engage with each other. Members should read the research into the youth gang problem in South Auckland. They should not put their head in the sand and say it is the parents’ fault and the parents’ problem, when bosses are lining up at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to tell us they do not need flexible working hours legislation in this country because they already have flexible working hours, and that if the workers do not like the flexible working hours in this job, then they can go down the road and get another job. That is what people in the hospitality industry told us. They will not be paid any more as a result of this bill. There will be a restaurant next door to a supermarket and there will be two different sets of conditions for two different sets of low-paid workers, under this bill and under Stevie Chadwick’s bill. I oppose both of them.

I think it is a good time for this country to be entering into this debate about what is really pulling families apart in low-income areas, to start thinking about the consequences, and to do some serious thinking about what we do to resolve it. Keeping shops closed on these 3½ days is not a hardship for people; they can go out and buy things the very next day and still survive—still be alive. In many countries in this world that we go and visit happily as tourists the shops are not open at all on Sundays. Do all of those people who go to the Pacific and enjoy their lovely holidays there question the culture and say they will not go there again because the shops were not open on Sundays? We actually enjoy it because of the relaxed nature of those societies.

I am deadly serious about this. I challenge members who say this bill is about the right to shop, to think about the right for families to spend time together. If they say there should be no such right then they had better start facing up to the problems that are confronting us in South Auckland, Hamilton, Hastings, Porirua, and just about every province of this country, where people are forced into 24/7 jobs—sometimes multiple, low-paid jobs—and more and more of their conditions are being stripped away.

I have been given an employee contract of a large employer coming into being in Auckland soon—the labs that lab testing is going to be contracted out to—and the contract makes it compulsory to work on a public holiday. That is the sort of thing that employers up and down this country now expect as a norm.

I say it is time to turn back the clock and get some understanding of the impact of such things on the labour market. That member over there, David Bennett, shakes his head because he would not have a clue. He should start facing up to the consequences of the massive changes to this society and what is causing it, and not just blame the parents. He should start to look for the real causes—as the researchers, Catholic bishops, and so many thinking people in this country have done—then we will have a proper debate about this sort of bill. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I am always a little bit apprehensive following the Hon Mark Gosche. I would like to say he is a friend of mine, but he really does put some passion into issues that he is concerned about. I know that this is an issue he is concerned about, but, in a nutshell, he is wrong. Let be more correct: he has overstated the case. If families became dysfunctional because shops were open on a Sunday—particularly on Easter Sunday—we would have more dysfunctional families in Taupō than anywhere else, because shops in Taupō are allowed to open on Easter Sunday. That is the fact of the matter. Another fact of the matter is that the Easter trading rules are in a mess.

New Zealand First is pleased with Jacqui Dean for bringing the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill to the House, but we thought she took it a step too far. Having said that we are pleased with it—we supported it at the first reading—we say that we are not going to support it any further, because in the pipeline, following this bill, is a better bill: Steve Chadwick’s Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. It is superior.

Bob Clarkson: Oh, come on!

PETER BROWN: The National Party wants a little bit of success. I am sure Jacqui Dean understands our position. We think that Jacqui Dean took the bill a step too far by providing for the opening of shops on Good Friday. New Zealand First said so when the bill was introduced. If this were the only bill that addressed the issue to choose from, we would have supported it going to the Committee stage and sought to make amendments. But we are not prepared to do that now, because the Steve Chadwick bill is almost a carbon copy of a bill that the Rt Hon Winston Peters tried to get through the House on two earlier attempts. So we are very, very pleased to support the Steve Chadwick bill.

I would like to address one or two issues that have been raised. I was very interested when Dr Cullen, in acknowledging that Easter Sunday was not a public holiday, said that if one of these bills were passed, then in the fullness of time he would not be averse to looking at Easter Sunday becoming a public holiday. Let me say here and now that I am almost certain New Zealand First would look very positively at something along those lines. I cannot speak categorically, because we have not discussed it formally, but I know there would be some sympathy, if Easter Sunday became a trading day, towards looking at it becoming another public holiday for the people who are employed.

Let us also acknowledge that many occupations and professions work regularly on Easter Sunday. The people I think of, first and foremost, are the police, ambulance officers, and those who service the downside of our communities. But there is also the industry that I come from—the shipping and stevedoring industry. People from those industries work in all weathers, any day of the week. There are very few days on which they do not work, and they are on shift work 24 hours a day.

Nowadays, shopping is becoming therapy, as I am told quite frequently not only by my good wife but by very many other women. It has turned into an enjoyable pastime. I must admit that I enjoy walking in the supermarket and pushing the trolley for my wife while she just fills it up. I get a little bit worried when it starts to overflow, because sooner or later someone has to pay for the items. But, by and large, shopping can be an enjoyable experience.

In the place that Bob Clarkson and I come from, where we have the most efficient port in this country—they are all efficient, and I am not going to damn any port, but the Port of Tauranga is by far the most efficient port in the country—they bring in cruise ships regularly. It does not make sense that when tourists come off the cruise ship, they cannot go shopping on an Easter Sunday so they get in a bus, or a taxi, and go through to Taupō. That does not make sense to the people of Tauranga, so we need some legislation to address the issue. Unfortunately, I do not think that Jacqui Dean’s bill will make it, but we are encouraged by the Steve Chadwick bill. As I said earlier, it is a carbon copy of what Winston Peters came up with years ago—

Tariana Turia: Winston Peters?

PETER BROWN: Yes, really, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—about 10 years ago.

Rodney Hide: Is he still in Parliament?

PETER BROWN: Mr Hide has done too much dancing if he does not know that Winston Peters is still the most effective politician in this place by a country mile—and the member knows it. But I digress.

When it comes to Easter trading, our shop trading legislation is in a mess. We need to address that. We need to take note of what the public of New Zealand want. We need to take note of the advantages to New Zealand. We need to address the social downsides, as was very well illustrated—though it was a little bit over the top—by my colleague Mark Gosche. But we need legislation based around one of these bills, and the best bill to address the issue is the Steve Chadwick bill, which is entitled the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be voting against Jacqui Dean’s Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill and voting for Steve Chadwick’s bill. Thank you very much.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : What a shambles! In my 7 years in Parliament, I have never seen such a confusing and shambolic report from a select committee reach the floor of this House. Tonight we have two bills before us—this one and one set down to be debated shortly after it—attempting to amend the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act. These attempts follow a string of other unsuccessful attempts over the last few years.

Our shop trading hours today are set by the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 and the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Amendment Act 2001, but our Parliament is littered with other failed attempts to impose more shopping days on the New Zealand public and shopworkers alike. The Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter) Amendment Bill 1996 was defeated. The Shop Trading Hours Repeal of Restrictions Bill 1997 was defeated. The Shop Trading Hours Abolition of Restrictions Bill 1999 was defeated. The Rotorua District Easter Sunday Shop Trading Bill 2002 was defeated. The Shop Trading Hours Easter Trading (Local Exemption) Bill 2004 was defeated. These all sit in the dustbin of legislative history, and this is where this bill and the other amendment bill tonight also belong.

The Commerce Committee had the opportunity to study both bills, listen to submissions, and bring back to the House recommendations based on the submissions heard that at least we could debate. But, no! The select committee commentary on both bills states: “We have no clear preference for either bill and are recommending that both proceed with amendment.” What a cop-out! The Commerce Committee wants this House, in the Committee stage process somehow, to do its work for it.

So we now have two bills before us, each seeking to do different things and with amendments that go well beyond what was sought in the original bills. They were going to be debated together and now we find they are going to be debated separately, which makes this even more difficult. The shambles continues. Plainly, both cannot be passed, as one is in conflict with the other. I urge all of my parliamentary colleagues to now throw both of them out and to chastise—non-violently, of course—the Commerce Committee for its failure to do its job and for bringing this shambles to us.

It gets worse. Earlier today I attended a press conference organised by Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand, the Catholic agency promoting justice, peace, and development, regarding the two bills that we are debating. I attended this media conference together with fellow MPs Hone Harawira, Darien Fenton, and Gordon Copeland. We were presented with large baskets of Easter eggs, which we shared with all of you.

Hon Member: From where?

SUE BRADFORD: They came from the National Distribution Union. At that press conference Gordon Copeland stated that he was deputy chairperson of the Commerce Committee and complained that there had been, in his words, an “abuse of process”. The committee has reported these two bills to this House with amendments recorded as unanimous, when the significant amendments to Jacqui Dean’s bill that extend liberalisation of shopping hours to all territorial authorities in New Zealand were put together by a couple of members of the committee after the submission process had finished and without any submitter being able to speak to these amendments. This does not make for good lawmaking.

I would therefore urge those who may have some sympathy for further liberalisation of Easter trading to vote against both bills as a sign of displeasure at the process, even if not at the content of these particular bills. The report of the Commerce Committee on Jacqui Dean’s bill is a shocker. The original purpose of the bill was to grant a partial exemption to shops in visitor districts from the requirement in the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 that they be closed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. First up, Jacqui Dean was disingenuous with the name of her bill, which hid her attack on Good Friday by calling it the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill. But now the select committee by unanimous decision—or was it—has given the bill a completely new purpose of exempting all shops located in a territorial authority listed in schedule 2 from remaining closed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, then including in schedule 2 every territorial authority in the country.

We are told that territorial authorities can opt out through their local consultation provisions under the Local Government Act, but the mechanism to give effect to this opting out is either by the Committee of the whole House or, later, by amending legislation. So what does that mean? Either territorial local authorities will have to undergo their local consultation over the next few weeks, while the bill is before the Committee of the whole House—a legal impossibility if they are to abide by the consultation provisions of the Local Government Act—or they will have to wait for a member’s bill, to opt out. If this is not a shambles, I do not know what is.

I will spend my remaining time going to the heart of the shop trading hours debate. For me and for the Green Party overall, stopping the further commercialisation of family days and family life is a priority. I want to explode the myth, which we New Zealanders hold close to our hearts, that this country is a great place to grow up in. A recent Unicef report that came out last week on child well-being describes children’s health and welfare in New Zealand as being amongst some of the worst in developed countries. Our parents rate in the bottom quarter for time spent with their children. Is this the New Zealand we grew up in, or has this pervasive cultural myth outlived its usefulness? Why are New Zealand parents not spending quality time with their children? One of the reasons could be seen in the results of another OECD study that shows that New Zealanders work some of the longest hours in the OECD—1,826 hours per year, compared with an OECD average of 1,778.

We have before the House two bills that are, quite simply, manifestations of the relentless pressure of market forces upon the social culture and spiritual fabric of our society. These two bills, whatever their humble intent, seem to overlook the wider implications of their provisions for the 200,000 retail workers and their families and the more than 2 million people who continue to affiliate with the Christian religion in New Zealand.

Despite the very large numbers of people whom these bills could adversely impact directly, I argue that this is not a numbers debate; this is a conscience issue that will affect us all. As MPs we have been delegated the authority to vote according to our consciences and do what we believe to be morally right. But how can one be truly moral when one lacks a vision for what it means to be fully human, or reduces that vision to one of pure economic opportunity? Although this bill seeks to address some stated anomalies with the current shop trading legislation, it overlooks the bigger picture that Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day, and Anzac Day are actually the anomalies themselves, good anomalies—3½ days of the year when the logic of the market and economic opportunity do not prevail.

Let me remind members that retail businesses may open to trade on almost any day of the year and at any time they choose. The remaining 3½ days are the anomalies in that they stand against the prevailing winds of the relentless pursuit of profit and the “affluenza” that Oliver James describes as consuming societies like ours. Within these 3½ days we have the breathing space to reconsider what it is to be human, what it is that we live for, and what we value most highly and cherish above all else. At some deep level this debate is about defining what we value and what we do not—what it is about us as New Zealanders that makes us unique.

If we really want to be a country that is a great place to grow up in and bring our children up in, then we might need to start actively working towards implementing ways that make this more than a comfortable cultural myth, and more than the social equivalent of the clean and green myth. It is time for us to get real about how we might help to stem the disintegration of child welfare and family life in general in New Zealand. When parents are forced to work long hours at the expense of time spent with each other and with their children, children and young people are left without the comfort and security of traditional family interaction. I do not need to spell out consequences that often result when young people look elsewhere for their primary support. The Unicef report has captured those consequences well already. We all want to see better outcomes for our children. That obviously means better outcomes for our families, and that, in turn, means better outcomes for the workers who support the economic livelihood of those families.

The Green Party does not support this bill, because it works to undermine positive outcomes for children, their families, and the workers who support them. In effect, the liberalisation of Easter trading corrodes the once sacred value we placed around these days and around the family. But in the market-driven world it appears that nothing is sacred any longer.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) :Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa, itēneipō. Members may not know this, but the Easter before last was the year a cyclone hit Tūhoe country at Rūātoki in my electorate. It had nothing to do with the fact that the Taupō retail community was able to open its doors, and that of Rūātoki was not. It was, in fact, the cyclone that threatened to devastate a biennial Te Hui Ahurei o Tūhoe. Despite the big winds gusting forward and the tents collapsing all around us—I was present, as was Tariana Turia—Te Hui Ahurei stood strong. Despite the rain, the wind, and the mud Te Hui Ahurei continued for the 4 days of Easter. In many ways it was that Tūhoe spirit that I thought of when our attention turned to this Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill.

You see, Tūhoe, as a tribal nation, are a very young people. In fact, in 1996, 42 percent were under the age of 15, and it is precisely because of the youthfulness of Tūhoe that in the early 1970s Te Hui Ahurei o Tūhoe was established as a strategy to connect young Tūhoe to their culture. It was a product of renaissance and a way of maintaining Tūhoe identity amongst the younger members, most of whom lived away from the lands of the Urewera ranges. Nowadays, Te Hui Ahurei o Tūhoe attracts more than 25,000 people who come each Easter to the Eastern Bay of Plenty to celebrate Tūhoetanga. This year, as with other years, there will be netball; kapahaka; rugby; wearable arts; food; exhibitions; taupatupatu, or debates, with stimulating kōrero to and fro; and lots of competition and friendly challenges to bind the people together.

I look at that festival not as the member of Parliament for Waiariki, and not even because I have had the privilege of attending and sharing the celebrations with the people; I look at it today by thinking about how the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill will affect it. The first rendition of the bill from Jacqui Dean might not have affected too many Tūhoe, other than possibly those living in Wānaka and Tauranga. But if the recommendations of the Commerce Committee are enacted—which would mean that all shops in all areas could open on Good Friday and Easter Sunday—there would be a significant and longstanding effect, certainly on whānau, Tūhoe, and everyone else. Te Ahurei o Tūhoe, at its very heart, is an expression of whanaungatanga, a celebration of kinship. But if the shop trading amendments are to come into force, it would mean that the very basis of the festival is at risk.

I want to make it clear that the opportunity for whānau members to work or not to work on a public holiday is something that every individual worker is entitled to consider. There may well be solid economic reasons, lifestyle reasons, or career promotion factors that justify taking up every opportunity to work additional hours. For promoters of these bills the central factor is the due expression of individual choice, not the impact of this choice on others. There are only 3½ days every year that are genuine public holidays, as others have talked about. Although many previous restrictions on shop trading no longer exist, general restrictions still remain for trading on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day, and until 1 o’clock on Anzac Day. Three and a half days out of 365 is not a lot to ask for, really. Easter Sunday is the only Sunday left in the annual calendar when shops are not able to open. Easter Sunday, added to Good Friday, is also the only long, commercial-free weekend in which families can be together, basically uninterrupted by work commitments. But with this bill, and the accompanying Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill, this all stands to change.

So we in the Māori Party come to this bill thinking particularly about the impacts it will have and how it will impinge on whānau time. We wonder whether people will be working when ordinarily they would not be. How will this bill enhance and strengthen whānau participation in community activities? We think about voluntary and community work. If whānau members have to work, who will care for pakeke, younger children, and younger tamariki on days when, presumably, other forms of care might be harder to come by?

I return to this notion of choice. Providing an individual with the opportunity to work is not just a matter of that individual’s choice. Members can take, for example, in the case of my own whānau, my eldest daughter. If she takes up the opportunity to work on Easter Sunday or Good Friday, that choice will have implications for her younger siblings, her parents—her whānau—for we will all miss out on her delightful company, and whanaungatanga is therefore compromised.

We do acknowledge, however, that the protections around the work choices for employees at Easter have been strengthened by the recommendations from the select committee, and we will support those proposals. In the previous version of the bill, employees had to opt in to protections by agreement. That provision, of course, contrasted fairly significantly with existing legislation that applies protections to all employees.

However, we do not support the amendment made at the Commerce Committee to add all councils to the list of exempted areas, potentially allowing the total liberalisation of Easter trading across the entire nation. This is a far cry from the original intent of the bill—as Dr Cullen alluded to—to allow trading exemptions in the visitor districts of Tauranga and Wānaka. Although the select committee has made it possible for councils to opt out from exempting shop owners to trade during Easter, there are some very practical restrictions and questions around this capacity to opt out. The select committee report fails to detail how this would be done, what consultation would be required, and whether legislation would be amended. We believe it is vital that the bill describes the nature of the process that would be required, in order for district councils to decide appropriately whether to opt out of the exemption.

My understanding is that since 1997 there have been five bills before Parliament proposing amendments to the Easter shop trading hours legislation, and Sue Bradford alluded to some of those. Only one is passed, and that was the legislation giving garden centres an exemption on Easter Sunday. Following conscience votes the others have all failed to get sufficient support in Parliament. Surely that has to tell us something about central values that members of this Parliament will be revisiting in their decisions on the two bills in front of us. A vote for either of the bills will have many impacts on the constituents we represent. Neither bill will treat Easter as a public holiday. Therefore, workers will not be benefiting from compensation for family time by earning time and a half pay or a day in lieu.

The Māori Party is well aware that 30 years has passed since the Shop Trading Hours Act 1977, which placed significant restrictions on the hours and days that shops could operate. That law was amended in 1990 to provide much greater freedom for retailers. It permitted retailers to open up to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In a sense we went from the floodgates being fastened tight and secure to, 13 years later, the opposite occurring.

At the same time as work hours increased and employee protections had been reduced, the need for quality care of employees and whānau has never been more important. If the bills do miraculously make it through the Committee stage, a key priority would be to enable those working either Good Friday or Easter Sunday, or both, to be granted the pay rates and conditions commensurate with those of a pubic holiday. We appreciate, too, that no matter how we flesh the pay packet, one can never underestimate the importance of preserving precious family time as the reserve of the family and the family alone.

The Māori Party believes that working at Easter impinges on the ability to participate in whānau activities. We are, of course, mindful and fully supportive of the freedom to practise and express one’s spiritual beliefs and values. We are sufficiently aware of the compromises and sacrifices that far too many New Zealanders are experiencing, bringing in its wake the all too familiar trend of work-life imbalance. Kia ora tātou.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : As the deputy chairperson of the Commerce Committee, I would like to begin by clarifying how it has come to be that this Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill, which when it received its first reading in the House permitted shop trading on Good Friday and Easter Sunday in just the Wānaka and Tauranga districts, is now extended to cover the entire nation and every single territorial authority within the nation. Let us be very clear that the bill we will be voting on tonight now permits unrestricted shop trading on Good Friday and Easter Sunday from North Cape to Bluff, with no single area exempted or excepted. I want to explain to the House, because Sue Bradford touched on this matter, how that situation arose.

This bill was before the Commerce Committee for some time—for several months—and we received many submissions on it. At the conclusion of that phase, when we came to the consideration of the bill, there was no majority on the Commerce Committee for either this bill or the accompanying bill in the name of Steve Chadwick, on which we heard submissions at the same time. So it looked as though we would be referring both bills back to the House completely unaltered. At that point the Leader of the House, Dr Cullen, intervened at the Business Committee to say that he thought that was not a satisfactory process, when the bills under consideration were to be debated in this House as conscience bills. Members may recall that subsequently the Speaker wrote to every select committee, stating that if the committee is considering a conscience bill, then it at least has an obligation to bring it back to this House fit for its purpose.

Having received that advice from the Speaker’s office, we then proceeded to examine the bills in detail. Some members of the committee made it clear from the outset that they were going to oppose the bill. So when Sue Bradford stated that this bill was reported back unanimously from the select committee, that is incorrect. That was never the case, and Sue Bradford misunderstood the situation in that regard. The select committee basically said that if it was OK with the member in charge of the bill, and as suggested by a member of the committee, we would put a nationwide provision in the bill, in the knowledge that at the Committee stage it could, if necessary, be taken out. That is how schedule 2 was amended from including just the Wānaka district and Tauranga district to including the entire nation.

But I make the point that that change did not arise from one single submission made to the committee or heard by the committee. I repeat that there was no submission to the committee that this bill should be widened out to embrace the entire nation. Therefore, in my opinion, the nation’s inclusion in schedule 2 is contrary to democracy, is contrary to parliamentary process, and should not be permitted. It was done in the circumstances I have set out, but I can signal now that should this bill be passed tonight, there will be a move in the Committee stage to take its provisions back to ones that apply to the original two districts only: Wānaka and Tauranga. There will be such a move, and people will have an opportunity to vote the rest of the country out. I make the point again that its inclusion was done without any submissions from the public on that issue being heard at all.

I turn now to the fact that I oppose this bill. I would like to see as many New Zealanders as possible continue to have a holiday on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. There are 350,000 people directly or indirectly associated with the retail sector and other organisations similar to it, such as used-car and new-car dealerships. Those 350,000 people at the moment, as of right, have a holiday on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. This Parliament is debating tonight whether we should remove that right from those people and force them to work on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, willingly or otherwise—because that is the commercial reality. Let us not be naive about it. The commercial reality is that those 350,000 people will, if this bill is passed, be working on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. That is the reality, and we are removing that right not to work. Therefore, I believe that the House should proceed with great caution. We are removing a right that New Zealanders have had, as far as I know, for a very, very long time: the right that if they work in, manage, or own a retail shop or similar business, they do not have to work on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Henceforth we are going to change that.

I believe that is absolutely tragic for those 350,000 people and all of the people, which probably includes most New Zealanders, who will be affected, as Te Ururoa Flavell said so clearly, by their absence. Those people will no longer be with us on Easter Sunday for family celebrations. They will no longer be with us for sporting and other occasions on Good Friday. We should bear in mind, by the way, that people can now go to garden centres on Good Friday, as that provision is already there. This change is proposed in spite of the fact that there is no really good reason for doing that.

I was also very taken by the explanation given by Hone Harawira today at the press conference that in Māoridom Easter is now the time when hui are held. It is the time when whānau, and even iwi and hapū, come together. That is because it is the only time in the entire year when they can get together, when they are all on holiday. We are going to destroy that. If they continue to have those activities, and I am sure they will, a significant segment of those hapū, iwi, or families will no longer be there.

I think all of us, even on Christmas Day as we get together, find ourselves asking where a granddaughter is, only to be told that she has had to work because she is a nurse, or whatever she is. Already a lot of people have to work even on Christmas Day, of necessity. But it is completely unnecessary for anyone else who is not involved in the provision of essential services, such as nursing and so forth, to work just in order to chase a very elusive extra dollar.

I make the point that New Zealanders are already some of the people who work the longest hours of people in any OECD country. I would also like to make the point that according to statistics produced by the New Zealand Institute, the fact that we work longer hours does not mean that our labour force is more productive than that of other countries. On the contrary, there is a certain point at which just working longer hours actually reduces productivity. An example of that would be France, which has a 35-hour working week and a productivity rate that is way better than New Zealand’s. So this measure is counter-productive. Why? Because people are stressed, they are tired, and their health is suffering, and it really is not even good commercial sense to have exhausted people working on those two very valuable days.

Only 3½ special holidays are set aside each year—only one single Sunday out of every 52—and I believe that those special days should remain special for all New Zealanders or, as I said, for as many as possible, having regard to the fact that essential services must continue. Service stations need to be open to sell gasoline, restaurants need to be open so that people can eat, and so on. Those facilities are already open on Good Friday and Easter Sunday anyway. But the rest of it is simply optional, in reality. We should not remove the right of people to have a holiday on those two days without any compelling reason, commercial or otherwise. Those days should remain special for all New Zealanders. United Future members will therefore—although this is a conscience vote, I stress—be voting against this bill tonight, because we believe that we should not arbitrarily, without any submissions at all along those lines coming to the select committee, open the entire country to shop trading on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. It simply does not make sense. It is poor law, and we should not proceed with it.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : It is worth reflecting on what we are doing in this House when we debate shop trading hours. There are 121 MPs in this Parliament who are deciding on when workers can work, when businesses can open, and when communities can hold an event or engage in mutually advantageous capitalistic acts by trading. That is what we are deciding.

What I do not understand is how people can stand up in this House and think that somehow they have the right to decide whether a dairy, shop, store, or cafe should open on a particular day and that if they have some religious view, it should be foisted on to a Hindu, a Muslim, an atheist, an agnostic, or a Christian who actually wants to work on that particular day. I was astonished to hear Mark Gosche quote the Catholic bishops. It is a bit rich for the Labour Party to quote Catholic bishops, in favour of its argument. Then I heard people say that somehow—

Sue Moroney: Some of us are Catholics.

RODNEY HIDE: Some woman over there who never speaks is yelling out that some of us are Catholics. I am just making the point that when the Catholic bishops—

Russell Fairbrother: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My friend Sue Moroney is entitled to be referred to by her proper name, rather than as “some woman”. That comment may say more about the speaker than it does about Sue Moroney, but this “other woman” has a name, which should be used.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): If the member speaks about another member he should use the member’s correct name.

RODNEY HIDE: She should identify herself before interjecting. The lady never stands up and speaks. I do not know what she is called.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Mr Hide, I asked you to use the member’s name if you are going to speak of her in the way you did. I just ask you to use the member’s name.

RODNEY HIDE: Then I heard, from people standing up, that somehow if people are working it means that they are neglecting their children. What a lot of nonsense that has to be! It is the parents of the neglected children in New Zealand who do not work. That tends to be the pattern in New Zealand—there are plenty of children in homes who are totally neglected, and it cannot be said that it is because their parents have to work on Easter Sunday. They do not work on any day. That is part of the problem. Darren Hughes over there is shaking his head. He should be looking to some of the statistics that are occurring in the electorate that will lose at the next election. That is what he should be doing. He should be following the arguments that are going on here about the underclass.

The idea that parents who are doing an honest day’s work are somehow neglecting their children has to be rubbish, and it shows how out of touch with the people of New Zealand this Government has become. This may come as a shock for Darren Hughes, because he does not work on any day, but there are a lot of people in New Zealand who have to work on Easter Sunday. That is the reality of the situation right now. They have to work. Are their children being neglected because they are working on Easter Sunday? Of course not. Who is this Darren Hughes to be telling people that they, as parents, should not work on an Easter Sunday if they choose to? Who is Darren Hughes to say to business owners in Wānaka—or wherever—that they should not work? I would be very interested to see if Darren Hughes votes for Steve Chadwick’s bill, because what would he be saying then about the parents and that particular thing? Anyway, what would Darren Hughes know about anything, one asks oneself when one actually listens to him speak.

People are scraping the bottom of the barrel to be saying that cafes cannot be opened on Easter Sunday because children’s—

Darren Hughes: One percent. I didn’t take a party from 7 percent to 1 percent. The whole party took a holiday when he took over.

RODNEY HIDE: I like Darren Hughes! He wants to talk about the last election. How did he get on in his electorate? I ask Nathan Guy what happened. I will tell members what happened to Darren Hughes in his electorate. What was his majority? Thirty-four. How much was it? How many? It was 34. He is going to lose that seat the next election. I would be concentrating on that, not on the ACT party. [Interruption] Here is a man, Darren Hughes, who is sitting there getting all red in the face—I swear to heaven he has gone all red in the face—when I get up to speak. He is worried about the fact that ACT has only two MPs. If I were Darren Hughes I would be worried about his electorate, because the people in it are sick of this MP not doing his job and they will vote for Nathan Guy at the next election. That is what that member should be doing and not worrying about the ACT party. I tell him that ACT will do very well at the next election—I thank Darren—with or without his help. But I ask him to keep it up, because I am sure if he keeps getting red in the face someone in the Labour Party will recognise his efforts and he might get a promotion.

Darren Hughes: I bet he was red in the face when he was drowning in the harbour the other day. His party drowned, he drowned when he went swimming, and he cannot even talk about the bill. What about people who are forced to work on that day?

RODNEY HIDE: I say this to Mr Hughes. If he comes along to the Tauranga ocean swimming race, I will give him a race. [Interruption] Bob Clarkson will be there. It is another feature of the Labour Party that no one is allowed to have any business open on Easter Sunday because that would be fun. People are never allowed to go dancing, because that might be fun. Now Darren Hughes has got upset because on Saturday I went for a swim in the harbour. What sort of life are we going to lead under the Labour Party when they want to tell us all what to do, that we cannot take any risks, and that we have to check with Helen Clark before we get up in the morning? I tell Darren Hughes—that man over there—that he should get out more often and have a bit of fun.

We should get back to the point of this speech and this bill. The point is this: a business employs people and pays their wages, and it raises the money that pays the taxes to pay Darren Hughes’ wages each week—heaven knows why; to get abused—so why cannot that business and the people it employs, and the community in which those people work, decide whether to open or close on any day they choose on any part of the year? Why cannot people decide for themselves whether they want to go shopping on Easter Sunday? Why cannot we leave it up to them? Why do we think it is only people like Darren Hughes who have the moral and intellectual development to decide for people whether they can work, open their shop, or do their business?

I say we vote for this bill and the other bill like it, because I believe in the freedom of New Zealanders and I trust them to make decisions for themselves, their businesses, and their families that are a whole lot better than those Darren Hughes ever could make. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : After that hilarious speech by Rodney Hide, I come back to the issue, which is about workers’ rights and whether workers can be forced to work on Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

I thank the member Sue Bradford for bringing to the House’s attention the nice little gift this afternoon; most members obviously did not know where it came from. She reminded people that they—it is the Easter eggs, I am talking about—were gifts from members of the National Distribution Union on behalf of the 200,000 retail workers in New Zealand to remind us that if this bill, and the other one that I will be voting against, become law, they will not be able to spend their time with their families on Easter Sunday and, under Jacqui Dean’s bill, on Good Friday.

I went with some other MPs to a press conference today and along with those other MPs, I placed the letter and a chocolate egg on members’ desks. Just in case members were too busy munching on the chocolates, I thought I would read a little bit from it because I am sure most have not bothered to read it—that is the blue paper that was distributed to members today. “Dear Member of Parliament, Easter Sunday is the last shop-free Sunday we have. It is not a public holiday, meaning that shop workers will not be paid any more for working on that day, nor will they earn a day off in lieu. At a time when New Zealand has been exposed by the Unicef report as a country where parents do not spend enough time with their children, we urge MPs not to make matters worse.”

Actually, it is not just about the unions. This is from the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference, the Social Justice Commission of the Anglican Church, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, and others. [Interruption] Some of these are people who work in Mr Bennett’s community. I want to make it very, very clear to this House that I am on the side of these workers. Retail workers already work evenings, weeks, and on many public holidays. Easter Sunday and Good Friday are currently the 2 days in a year on which they can guarantee they will not be asked to work.

Let us remind ourselves of history. People have talked about the bills that have come through this House, but in 1990 most shops could not trade on any Sunday and they were unable to open on nine of the 11 recognised holidays. Now they can trade on 51 out of 52 Sundays and every public holiday except Good Friday, Christmas Day, and the morning of Anzac Day. [Interruption] So Mr Bennett thinks those shops should open on the morning of Anzac Day, as well. He should let us know, so we can tell his constituents. This means that there are only 3½ days left in a year when shops cannot trade. I cannot accept that the public—or, indeed, tourists or those off big boats—cannot cope without shopping for those 3½ days a year. Really, can they not just wait one day?

Colin King: What about the 6 weeks’ holiday you get?

DARIEN FENTON: What about the member’s holidays? National tried to take holidays off a whole lot of workers in 1990. Let us not go there again, please. Shop workers have combined with other community groups and churches to call on this Parliament to save working people from the inexorable march of commercial demands made over and above the needs of ordinary New Zealanders. I support the call for Parliament not to continue to liberalise the working lives of these workers. I join with other parliamentarians who do not accept that it is inevitable that every day in the year should be a working day, or a shopping day for that matter.

As my colleague Gordon Copeland has pointed out, New Zealanders already work some of the longest hours in the OECD. Many of us have been to European countries—France has been mentioned, and I spent some time in Spain earlier this year—and we all know that shops there are not open on a Sunday. Does the world end? Do things change? Do people not go to those countries? Well, they do. Also, as other people have mentioned, the level of productivity in those countries is much, much higher and working hours are lower than they are here. Instead of learning from those examples and considering their possible application for New Zealand, we continue, through bills like this one, the relentless quest for the expansion of working hours.

I am a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which has been considering quality flexible work. We hear all the time about balancing work and home life, how it is a growing concern for both employers and workers, how improving that balance could help with employee recruitment and retention, how it can match jobs with people who would not otherwise work, and how it can benefit families and communities. We all know that there are more women, more dual-income families, and more sole parents in the workforce. That amplifies the potential for conflict between work and family life, yet here we are today debating yet another extension and, actually, another intrusion into family lives.

Also today we have been debating the important Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill, relating to section 59 of the Crimes Act. The concern of those who are supporting the removal of the reasonable force argument is our children and what kind of environment and safety they are growing up in. Add to that the Unicef report that I have already referred to—and that some of the Opposition members made much of last week—and we get to the heart of the problem with this bill. It is anti-family, anti-community, and anti-worker. It focuses on the commercial imperative of shops being able to open on Easter Friday and Good Sunday above all of the interests of families. We hear so often in debates in this House members going on about families. This bill puts commerce before families. Surely on one or two days of the year we can put families before commerce?

This bill ignores the 200,000 people working in this industry who, if this bill proceeds, will be unable to participate in the range of family, community, religious, and recreational activities that take place around New Zealand over Easter. I would also say that the bill takes quite a monocultural approach. It ignores the fact that New Zealand now has a range of different cultures, particularly those of Pacific people, who regard Sunday as a special day for worship, for families, and for cultural activities.

Although I appreciate the efforts of the Commerce Committee to insert some worker protections in the bill, I think the committee needs to get real and understand the real world. On many occasions, in my role as a worker representative, I had to deal with employers who tried to force people to work on Sundays when they had family and other responsibilities. Indeed, I have dealt with the same situation in respect of many public holidays. I appreciate that the rights are in the bill, but those will just not work.

I do appreciate that the member in charge of this bill is trying to represent her community, but I ask this House whether New Zealand will lose any trade or tourism because the shops are shut on one or two days a year. I quote again from the letter that was distributed to members this afternoon: “Whether it is making it easier for teenagers to be with their families at Easter or for shop-working parents to spend time at home, the current restrictions are very important. Opening the shops at Easter would impact on far more than those workers who work on those days. We all talk about the decline in volunteers, the impact that weekend shopping has had on sports clubs, community events, and family life. We cannot turn the clock back, but we can put community before commerce on at least one Sunday a year.”

So I call on this Parliament, and also on business and communities, to put families and their interests first on this occasion. I recall the efforts made by the National Government during the late 1990s to take away the holiday rights of workers. That move was resisted by workers, unions, communities, and families, and National failed. This bill will be resisted in the same way. If members opposite had been at that press conference today, they would know that pressure is mounting against this bill amongst the retail workers whom I met and talked to today. I tell those members to talk to some retail workers to see what they have to say about this issue. They are not behind this bill. They do not want to be forced to work on Easter Sunday, let alone Good Friday. So those workers are getting behind it. I am on their side; let us not go there again by supporting this bill tonight.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : We are talking this evening about a conscience vote on two bills with regard to Easter Sunday trading and Easter trading—the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill and the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill—and I have to say that my conscience has absolutely no difficulty with this vote. My conscience tells me that I will be voting against both these bills. There are several reasons why I will be voting against both these bills, but let me start by saying that it was pretty ironic that both bills were drawn out of the ballot, one after the other. Some might call it an act of God, but I do not think so. The Commerce Committee had to try to deal with the issue of these two very similar bills being drawn out at the same time, and the bills have come back to the House in a format that will make it quite difficult for members to deal with issues that are fairly similar. Some members may be voting for one bill and against the other, or vice versa, but for me it is absolutely clear: I will be voting against both bills.

This is a moment for me where, by using my conscience vote as a member of Parliament, I can actually satisfy both my Catholic upbringing—yes, I say to Mr Hide; I am a Labour member of Parliament with a Catholic upbringing—and also my trade union activism. Voting against these bills allows me to satisfy both of those aspects. In my maiden speech I talked about work-life balance, with it being an issue that I had come to this House to deal with. If I apply that issue of work-life balance to this bill—

Bob Clarkson: But give us choice.

SUE MORONEY: Well, the member can have choice, but he cannot have work-life balance and that choice at the same time, because for retail workers—Te Ururoa Flavell was quite right—there will be no choice. We can put as many worker protections as we like into these bills, but there will be pressure put on workers for reasons of promotion, for reasons of whether they will get the right shifts given to them in the future, and for all of those reasons that are out in the real world. Those are the choices faced by retail workers out there.

My colleague Darien Fenton spoke to these retail workers. She would be able to tell members opposite about that. [Interruption] I notice that members opposite do not seem to know what retail workers think. They did not take the opportunity to go out and talk to them today, but I can tell them that retail workers would easily be able to explain to members of Parliament the sort of pressure that is brought to bear on them to work particular days or shifts, because of how their work life goes.

Everyone seems pretty keen about the test of work-life balance, because all the surveys will tell us that when New Zealanders are asked about the things that concern them the most, guess what comes top of the list? It is work-life balance. Can people guess what does not even feature on that list? The list never features the sentiment: “Gosh, there are 3½ days a week when we cannot go shopping. That is the most desperately urgent thing that we want fixed in this country.” That is not at the top of the minds of New Zealanders, but they are concerned about the lack of time that they have to spend with their families, they are concerned about family life, and, yes, they are concerned about work-life balance.

These bills do not pass the test of work-life balance. They do nothing to enhance it. In fact, they do things to make work-life balance worse in this country. It is not just for those retail workers and their families that work-life balance would be reduced through the passing of these bills, but also for the rest of us. Because when the shops are open then maybe we might go to them. I think Peter Brown talked about this before. Maybe we might feel like we need some retail therapy on Easter Sunday. Well I tell Peter Brown that if he needs some therapy on Easter Sunday there are lots of other options. For me, they are kicking a ball around with one’s kids, or going for a walk. There are lots of things people can do if they feel they need therapy on Easter Sunday. People could even go to church on Easter Sunday if they wanted some therapy. But the sort of therapy that we do not need on Easter Sunday or Good Friday is shopping. We can do that on any other day of the year, except for just those 3½ days.

I want to ask the proponents of this bill about the other 1½ days that would be left if the bill in the name of Jacqui Dean was passed. What are the plans for the morning of Anzac Day from the members who support this bill? Is that up for grabs as well? Is that the next thing that those members want to go after? Is that the next commercial interest that will be put before the lifestyles of New Zealanders? Some of those members must be feeling quite disappointed about the revival that Anzac Day has had recently, because I am sure some of the retail sector are concerned that that will put paid to their plans to open on the morning of Anzac Day as well. What about Christmas Day? Is that next on the shopping list of members who support this bill? Because, gosh, if these bills are passed we will still have 1½ days where there is not that freedom of choice that is so desperately sought by some members of this Parliament.

Obviously at the top of everyone’s mind are those 1½ days that are left, and how we are going to grab them—how we are going to get hold of them. But then, of course, members are listening to a member of Parliament who is a little unfashionable. Going to horse racing is one of my favourite pastimes, and in most circumstances I would do anything to get a day at the races. Well, I will not even go to Sunday race meetings because I object to the idea of Sunday racing. So, yes, I am a little old-fashioned in this field. Should the racing industry ever think that it wants to put forward legislation to start race meetings on Good Friday or Easter Sunday, it would not get my support for that either. So I just put that on the record right here and now.

It is a rare occasion that I can satisfy both my Catholic upbringing and my trade union activism with just one vote. It is a good day to be able to do that. I want to quote what the Catholic bishops had to say. Rodney Hide may think that Catholic bishops do not have anything relevant to say to New Zealanders today, but I certainly believe they do. Those people who are voting in support of these bills may think that the Catholic bishops are out of touch with New Zealanders, but—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I think members just need to quieten down and show a bit of respect for speakers.

SUE MORONEY: I would like members to pay some respect to what the Catholic bishops had to say, because members opposite do not seem to want to know what they said. They said: “The importance of spending adequate quality time together, especially for parents and children, is vital for strengthening family relationships.” They talked about Cardinal Thomas Williams pointing out in an earlier statement—and this is important, so I think National Party members opposite may want to listen to what the Catholic bishops had to say: “If profit is to take priority over people, the outcome will be a society less human and more stressful for individuals, families, and the community at large.” I tell Mr Hide that that is why it is the business of this Parliament to discuss this issue. That is why we have something to say about shop opening hours. That is why we have something to say about workers’ rights. It is about a society that will become less human. They went on to say that when parents are forced to work long hours, it is an expensive time.

• Debate interrupted.