Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill

I move, That the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The question of whether to allow shop trading over the Easter period is a contentious one, considered by this House on numerous occasions. Those in support of shop trading emphasise economic opportunities and the freedom of shoppers to choose, while those against it focus on the need for shops to be closed to mark a day of significance and for workers to be able to spend time with their families. The Government wants to resolve this perennial issue and this bill provides a pragmatic solution, allowing communities to decide for themselves whether to enable shop trading on Easter Sunday and providing protections for those shop employees who choose not to work on Easter Sunday.

It is by no means the first attempt to resolve these things, and successive members’ bills have been unsuccessful. I want to acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay and Jacqui Dean for their advocacy on this issue on behalf of the communities they represent. Mr McClay’s bill, which was narrowly defeated in 2009, proposed that authority be given to territorial authorities to decide whether shops should open on Easter Sunday rather than have that dictated to them. I agreed with that sentiment then, as I do now. This bill is modelled on that goal.

New Zealand has 3½ restricted trading days: Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day, and Anzac Day until 1 p.m. On those days shops are restricted from trading. Some exemptions exist for a few areas on Easter Sunday, like Taupō and Paihia, and there are some other places with very specific exemptions from the trading restrictions. Auckland’s Parnell Road is one, and even in my home city of Dunedin, only the Carnegie Centre in Moray Place can sell arts, crafts, and children’s toys, and only if there are performances on the mezzanine floor. That centre does no longer trade.

These exemptions are arbitrary, outdated, and do not reflect the interests of many New Zealanders who want to be able to undertake a range of activities over the Easter period, including being able to shop. Those involved in our retail and tourism sectors wish to be able to provide their goods and services over Easter, and tourists also come to expect this.

A large and growing number of events are scheduled over Easter, such as Warbirds over Wānaka International Air Show. This event draws large crowds from New Zealand and around the world. The inability to even have a choice about doing a bit of shopping around these events is outdated and out of line with the choices people want to be able to make.

However, it is worth pointing out that when this bill is passed, not a single retail outlet that is presently prevented by law from opening on Easter Sunday will be able to do so in the future. Whether they will be able to will depend on the choices the local communities themselves make—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will accept a number of interventions, but not that one from the member Ms Moroney.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member has taken offence, Ms Moroney should withdraw and apologise. [Interruption] If the member wants to address the Chair, she should stand on her feet and do so.

💬 Sue Moroney: Sorry. Could I ask him what he has taken offence to?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear what the member said. Maybe the Minister can, as well as he can, repeat the—

The member knows the word she used and she knows it is unparliamentary. This is an offence against the House, but I take offence in any event.

💬 Sue Moroney: Well, speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I am not going to entertain further debate on the matter. The Minister has taken offence. The member should be able to recall—because it was not that long ago—which intervention it was, and he has taken offence. He has expressed that. She should withdraw and apologise.

💬 Sue Moroney: Can I just seek clarification? I want to know whether—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you cannot. You can stand, withdraw, and apologise for the remark that you made.

💬 Sue Moroney: Well, was it unparliamentary or not?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, stand, withdraw, and apologise, because that is what you are being told to do. That is the protocol of this House, and the member should have within her mind the last statement she made before the Minister took offence.

💬 Hon Annette King: But what if she doesn’t think it’s unparliamentary?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member Sue Moroney—and that member, Annette King—knows the protocols of this House and does not need them explained by me. Stand, withdraw, and apologise, or leave the Chamber.

💬 Sue Moroney: I withdraw and apologise for using the phrase “gutless”.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is disorderly. She has used the language again. She can leave the Chamber. [Interruption] Order!

Sue Moroney withdrew from the Chamber.

As I was saying, when this bill is passed, not a single retail outlet that is presently prevented by law from opening on Easter Sunday will be able to do so. Whether it will be able to do so in the future will depend on the choices its local community will make, with a choice being made possible by the passage of this bill.

I want to thank the members of the Commerce Committee, well led by its chair, Melissa Lee, for their hard work, and also thanks to those who made thoughtful submissions on the bill. Some of those submissions were very strongly articulated on both sides of the debate. Those in favour of Easter trading were strongly of the view that the Government should simply drop any fetters on trading on this day and the other restricted trading days in all parts of the country. Some of those opposed to the change were in favour of removing the present exemptions in places like Queenstown and Taupō. The wisdom of Solomon is needed, and I do not profess that this is such an outcome; merely, it is pragmatic progress that, most of all, puts choice in the hands of the communities.

The bill provides that territorial authorities, in consultation with their communities, can determine whether to allow shop trading on Easter Sunday. The bill simply provides territorial authorities a yes or no to the opening of retail stores in an entire district, or in parts of it. Authorities deciding to allow for shop trading on Easter Sunday will be able to develop local policies for only this, and cannot impose any additional shop trading rules.

One of the concerns raised has been the impact of this change, if communities choose it, on employees of those businesses. I share that concern, which is why this bill also provides new protections for shop employees. It ensures that on Easter Sunday, all shop employees will have the right to refuse work—a right that is not available to shop employees on Easter Sunday under the current law. This includes employees who currently work in, for example, petrol stations and dairies, those working in shops that have current exemptions from trading restrictions, and, as well, those working in areas that adopt a local shop trading policy. These new protections will also apply to shop employees doing work in shops that cannot open for trade on Easter Sunday—work such as shelf stacking and stocktaking.

Shop employees do not have to provide a reason for refusing to work on Easter Sunday, and employers cannot compel employees to work. If a shop employee is compelled to work or disadvantaged for refusing to work, the employee can take a personal grievance against the employer in accordance with the Employment Relations Act 2000.

The bill sets out clear obligations for both employers and employees relating to how an employee’s agreement to work must be obtained. This agreement must be sought each year, and cannot be part of an employment agreement. Any such provision in an employment agreement will be unenforceable.

This bill is a pragmatic and balanced approach, providing choice to local communities on whether or not to allow shop trading on Easter Sunday, while giving appropriate protections to all shop employees who, for whatever reason, choose not to work on Easter Sunday. I commend it to the House.

The Prime Minister is fond of coming to this House and telling people to “get some guts”. I have a message to the National Government about this legislation: get some guts. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is absolutely right when he says that this is a contentious issue, and I think National should get some guts and deal with this contentious issue itself, rather than pass the buck on to our territorial local authorities. This Government, which is so fond of saying to local government that it has to focus on its core responsibilities, that it has to stop increasing rates, and that it is always the local government’s fault for anything that the Government does not want to take responsibility for, is passing the buck on an issue that is fundamental to the role of the New Zealand Parliament.

This is a matter of industrial relations. We are the decision-making body that is responsible for industrial relations, not local government. Local government representatives turned up to the Commerce Committee in droves and said to the Government: “Make a decision about this.” Some of them said that they were in favour of it, some of them said that they were indifferent to it, but they all said: “Make this decision yourself. Do not pass this on to us. Do not pass this on to us, because it will force costs on us.” This legislation forces councils to make a decision about a contentious issue—one that divides communities—that this National Government does not have the guts to deal with itself.

The Government says that this is all about choice. Well, where is the choice for National MPs? Because the Minister is right when he says that this Parliament has considered multiple bills about this issue, and not one of them—not one of them—has passed first reading. Repeatedly, parliaments have rejected the idea of Easter trading. The reason parliaments have rejected Easter trading is that National MPs have voted against it, so where is the choice for National MPs on this issue? If it is all about choice—if we should be giving local councils and local communities more choice—well, let us just dissolve Parliament. Let us just dissolve Parliament and get local councils to do everything. That is the message that we have been hearing and, I am sure, we will hear from National MPs about this issue—that it is all about communities having their own choice. Well, let us all go home. Let us all just go home, spend some time with our families, and give up on Parliament, and we will just have local councils make all the decisions. That is the message that we are hearing from members opposite, because they have not been able to get some guts and deal with this issue themselves.

I am opposed to this legislation, but not on religious grounds. I know that many people are opposed to it on religious grounds, but I am opposed to it because I believe that we should set aside some days that are for families and communities to spend time together. We hear so often from members opposite about what is important about keeping families together, about what is important about building strong communities. Well, actually—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: A family that shops together stays together.

Ha, ha! Spending time together—being able to spend time together—is a really important part of building communities and building families. We as a nation should set aside some days when families and communities can spend time together. For historical reasons, we do that predominately on days that are Christian festivals. Personally, that is not terribly important to me. I know it is important to others, and, in fact, that is why National MPs have repeatedly voted against previous attempts to have Easter trading. If we were to have a debate about what other days we might have, what is the sensible number of days to set aside for families and communities, and what would be appropriate days to do that in New Zealand, that is a debate I would be prepared to engage with. But that is never the debate that the National Government initiates. The debate that the National Government initiates is on how we can reduce the number of days that are set aside for families and communities.

If we are doing this to Easter Sunday, well, why not Good Friday? Good Friday is just 2 days apart from Easter Sunday, and we are told that for tourism reasons it is absolutely, vitally important that shops can open on Easter Sunday, yet, for some reason, it is OK that they are going to be closed on Good Friday. Being closed on the Friday is not going to make or break these businesses, but, somehow, being open 2 days after that on the Sunday is absolutely fundamental. Businesses are going to go under if they do not have this opportunity, so why not? Why not extend this legislation to Good Friday? Why not extend it to Christmas Day? That is the logic. That is what the retailers who came to the select committee told us this bill should actually do, so where is the logic? Where is the logic?

The other thing that is illogical is that the Minister comes to this House and says: “What we’ve got at the moment is completely inconsistent across the country. We’ve got one set of rules in one town and a different set of rules in another town.” Well, this legislation is not going to fix that. This is not going to fix that. In my part of the country, you could have one set of rules in Palmerston North and, 15 minutes up the road, in Ian McKelvie’s electorate, you could have another set of rules in Feilding. That is completely inconsistent, and that is what is going to happen across the country. Different councils are going to make different decisions, and communities that are close together are going to have completely different sets of rules. That is madness. That is madness, and what is madness about it is that it is exactly the problem the Government claims this legislation is going to solve, but it does not. So the legislation is fundamentally flawed.

I want to know from members opposite why they are so opposed to the idea of people just pausing from commercial life, pausing from consumerism, taking a day out, and actually spending time with their families. What is so terrible about that idea?

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: They have that choice.

That is what I want to know. What is so terrible about that idea? The Minister says that they will have that choice, because he has written into this legislation that employees will be able to refuse work on Easter Sunday. Well, let us just step back and have an honest assessment of that.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: He doesn’t think much of unions—that’s the honest assessment.

Most of these employees are in pretty precarious employment situations. They do not have regular hours, they are often not working full time—in fact, more often than not, they are not working full time—and they are reliant on maintaining a good relationship with their manager so that they can get as many hours as possible. When they are in that situation, are they really going to turn down the requirement to work on Easter Sunday? Honestly, does the Minister think that?

The Minister’s cheap little jibe is that we must not have much faith in the unions if we think this is going to be a problem. Well, actually, very few of these people are in unions. I actually hope that this legislation encourages people to join the union, because they are going to need the union to stick up for them if they want to be able to refuse to work on Easter Sunday. But the truth is that through a variety of means, this National Government has eroded union rights, has made it harder for unions to recruit people, and has made it harder for unions to bargain for people, and, actually, union membership in the retail sector is remarkably low. These people are not represented by unions; they are on their own. They are completely on their own, and the Minister thinks that people in a precarious employment situation are going to feel confident to turn around to their manager and say: “No, I’m not going to work on Easter Sunday.”

We know what happens: slowly but surely, their hours get whittled down. We as a Parliament decided to address that issue with the zero-hour legislation. We got there in the end. We got there in the end. Well, why are we creating more opportunities for people in precarious employment to be exploited and forced to do things that take them away from their family and take them away from their community? It just shows how completely out of touch with reality for working people this National Government has become.

This legislation is shambolic. It is going to create inconsistencies across the country. It is going to force councils to do things that not only are expensive but will actually divide their communities as well. I will be very proud to go and cast my personal vote against this legislation. I say to the National MPs who have consistently voted against Easter trading in the past that it is time to get some guts. It is time to find your conscience. Come and join us over in the Noes lobby.

It is a real pleasure to rise and take a call in the third and final reading of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. Before I talk about the substance of the bill, I just want to add a couple of points to those Mr Iain Lees-Galloway has made. He seems to say that this bill is going to create inconsistencies. I thought this bill was about improving the inconsistencies that already exist, like that on Easter Sunday there are some towns in New Zealand that can actually trade and there are some that cannot. We are giving the power back to the local communities to decide for themselves whether they want to or not. Just because that member decides to talk as if National is this big bad wolf that is actually preventing people from doing what they want to do on an Easter Sunday, just because that member talks as if it is a public holiday—it is actually not. That is a misconception that most people have. Easter Sunday is not a public holiday. It is a restricted day. Good Friday is a public holiday; Easter Monday is a public holiday. People can have time with their families, if they so choose. On Easter Sunday, like any other Sunday, people can spend time with their families, if they so choose.

This is about choices. This is about giving back the power to local communities—like Mr Iain Lees-Galloway’s former colleague Ms Steve Chadwick, who used to be a Labour MP, who actually supports this and who is now the Mayor of Rotorua. Rotorua cannot trade on Easter Sunday at the moment, whereas the neighbouring town of Taupō can. So Rotorua will be celebrating this, and I think it is wonderful that we are giving power back to local communities to decide for themselves whether they actually want to trade on Sunday.

I would like to commend the members of the Commerce Committee, who have worked really hard. It is a pity that we could not agree on some of the elements, and I am glad that the Minister has introduced Supplementary Order Paper 179 to give back the power to the employees—the workers—to actually say no if they do not want to work on Easter Sunday.

As I said during the Committee stage of the debate, we have to remember that not all New Zealanders are in fact Christians. Many come from different global backgrounds—a truth that, I am sure, sours some members opposite in this Chamber—and we have growing ethnic populations with diverse cultural and religious customs, and we as a country should celebrate the diversity. What we are saying on this side of the House is that we celebrate the diversity that exists in this country and we are giving back the power to the local communities to decide. The inconsistency that exists currently can be eliminated and fixed up by the local communities, if they so choose. We are giving the choices back to the community. I commend this bill to the House and congratulate the Minister on this wonderful work that he has produced.

It is a bit hard to not make religious references, but in this case, I want to say hallelujah if this Government is actually going to give the power back to the local people. Hallelujah, because in Christchurch that is exactly what we want. We want the power given back to our local democracy so that we can decide for ourselves, as a local community, what needs to happen in the rebuild of our city. So hallelujah, please—we are waiting for the day when local democracy comes back to Canterbury and Christchurch.

This bill is abhorrent on many, many levels for many sections of the community. Let us start with women. Let us start with the power imbalance there is for women workers, who will be most impacted on by this because they are the ones who are working in retail who will not be able to make the choices that that member over there, Melissa Lee, says they will about whether they work or not. If you have been listening to the speeches that have been made today and the questions that came up in the House today, it is obvious that women are paid less and they will make the choice to actually stay and work on Easter Sunday because they need the money to feed their kids, to pay their rent, and to pay their power. So where is the balance of power there? Women will be impacted on because they are not able to have the choice, because they do not get paid enough. They are the ones who are going to be servicing the community that is going to get out shopping on this particular day. Let us face it: that impacts on their families and their kids.

We heard today in question time that there are something like 16,000 people who are homeless who are working or in training. Working people get paid so little in this country that they will look for every opportunity to earn extra money, and that includes working on Easter Sunday. So why do we not do something about improving the conditions for our women workers? Why do we not do that? Why do we not look at that, rather than creating another opportunity for retailers to profit from the misery of our families?

Let us look at our families. Let us face it: we are becoming more and more of a secular society. What happens on Easter Sunday? What happens on Easter Sunday?

💬 Ria Bond: We spend time with our families.

We spend time with our family. We put those Easter eggs out there in the garden for our children to find. We spend Easter Sunday with our children because we can, because we should. That is what this about. This is about spending time with our families. I tell you what, we should actually say: “Let’s do away with Christmas.” Whether you are religious or not, the sanctity of Christmas is about families and sharing time together with families, is it not? That is what I believe. So what are we doing to families if we are going to make it impossible for people to actually spend time with their families? They will not have a choice about whether they work or not, because there is this power imbalance between low-paid workers and their employers. There is this power imbalance.

What about Pacific people? What about Pacific people? They have very strong religious intent, and Easter Sunday is one of their most sacred days. They are going to feel compelled to work because of those pressures that I have discussed before. But I want to tell you one thing: we have got a Pacific caucus that is very supportive of ensuring that families—Pacific families—have adequate time off to do what feeds their soul, and that is to worship together as a community. It is very important to Pacific people to gather together, to worship together, as a community. This bill impacts on their ability to do that.

My fellow Cook Islands MP across the other side of the House said on one of his social media pages that he had not received one single complaint from the Cook Islands community about this bill. When I reposted that on my own social media page, what happened? What do you think happened? There was not one, there were not two; there were dozens and dozens and dozens of issues that came up where Pacific people—Cook Islands people, people from the Cook Islands community—said: “Hang on a minute. Hang on a minute. What are you suggesting—that one of the most sacred days in the Christian calendar actually becomes a day of trading?”. Was there not a story about Jesus and some traders at the temple? And what did Jesus do on that particular day?

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: He wasn’t a big fan of money traders.

Jesus was not a big fan of money traders. Pacific people and Cook Islands people are highly religious. This is an anathema to them. This is a complete anathema to them.

So let us talk about the opportunities that we have as families to get together. Let us talk about it. Whether you are religious or not, Christmas is one of those days and Easter Sunday is one of those days. It is one of the most important days in the Christian calendar. It is one of the most important days in the Pacific community, when we gather together as Pacific people.

I spoke with another member of the National caucus who happens to be a Pacific Islander—considering there are only two of them, it must be the Hon Sam Lotu-Iiga. When we were in the Cook Islands together to celebrate Constitution Day—50 years of Cook Islands self-governance and free association with New Zealand—we discussed the opportunities there are for Christian people to celebrate together. We sat together at lunch and we discussed our both having grown up within the Pacific Islanders’ Congregational Church (PICC). As teenagers we had a connection with the Rev. Sio from Newton PICC, and we talked about that. There is no way that you can tell me that he is not feeling some distress at not being able to vote with the Labour Party and the Opposition parties to vote this bill down. You cannot tell me that.

I feel distress for my Pacific brothers in the National Government because they are not able to vote according to their own conscience and their own choice. There is no way you can tell me that they do not feel some distress about that, having had numerous conversations with the Hon Sam Lotu-Iiga and with Alfred Ngaro about the depth of their faith. I know the depth of their faith, and I know they are feeling distress. They may deny that they are getting pressure from the Pacific community, but I know from what I have seen that they are getting pressure from the Pacific community. So I ask them—I ask them—please examine the depth of your faith, examine your conscience, and vote with us. Cross the floor and vote with us. Do not deny that this is a problem for you in the Pacific communities, because, as I said, when Alfred Ngaro said he had not had one complaint about his stance on this particular bill, when I reposted that, there were dozens and dozens of people who came out of the Cook Islands community to say: “That is blatantly wrong. We know that Alfred Ngaro is a man of deep conviction to his faith, so it is blatantly wrong what they are saying.”

We have many days of commemoration that do not hold as much passion and faith as this particular day. One day for families, one day for Pacific people, one day for women—because this is what we deserve. I really hope that my Pacific brothers can examine their hearts and their conscience and do the right thing—not bloc vote with the National Government, but actually do what their conscience tells them, what their faith tells them, and what their God tells them to do, and vote No. Thank you.

I rise in support of this, the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill, in its third reading. It is with very great pride that I do, because this bill is all about choice, about providing choices and enabling people in the communities to exercise those choices. It begins with a very simple choice: do communities wish to permit trading on Easter Sunday? If they do not, the local body authority is under no obligation to move away from its default position. If they do, then, through the special consultative process, it will consult with its communities. Local people will have the right and the opportunity to express their will—their choice—to their local body representatives. If, on the basis of that consultation, they feel that there is a desire to permit trading on Easter Sunday within the region, within their authority area, then the businesses will have a choice: do they wish to open or do they not? They will not be forced to trade if they do not wish to, but they may be permitted to, if that is the will of those local communities, and then the employees have the choice. The employees have the choice of whether or not they wish to work on that day.

When the members of the Opposition say that it is a time to spend with families, that is a choice that those employees—each one of them—will be able to exercise. I will come back to that in a moment, because it speaks volumes. The interjections and the previous statements speak volumes for what the Opposition members actually think about labour laws and the ability for employment protection to work in the real world. They have no faith at all.

This bill is all about empowering people to make decisions in their local communities—decisions and authority that our local body authorities and their representatives have wanted for years. Parliament, back in the early 2000s, granted general competence. I do not think there has been a single local body authority that has asked for that to be withdrawn. I do not think there is a single local body or district councillor whom I have met who thinks that local communities should not have a say in what is done in the operations of their local communities, so it is with some regret, I think, that some authorities chose to kick this can back up the road towards Parliament to make a tough decision for them. If local body authorities want general competence, if they want the ability for a broad remit of authority—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Well, give them everything then. Let’s go home.

—then they have to realise that they have to take the tough decisions with the easy.

It is notable that Mr Iain Lees-Galloway has yet again displayed for the public of New Zealand the centralist, central government, almost Stalinist-like approach of the Labour Party—all controlled and directed from central government. We here are the party of choice, which is giving the power out to those local communities to decide for themselves.

But let us move on to employment protections, because the Labour Party has a history of claiming they are important and of introducing legislation to support workers, yet its members have said throughout these debates on this particular bill that they do not work—they do not work. It seems to me that they sometimes work—what the Labour members really think is that when it is their measure, employment protection works really, really well, but when it is something that this Government wants to do, it does not work. To use Mr Lees-Galloway’s analogy: because it does not work, we may as well scrap it. That is what Mr Lees-Galloway is saying, really—it does not work, so just get rid of it all. Well, I think he is wrong—I think he is wrong—and the employment protections that this bill will afford these employees will give them the choice to work or to not work, as they see fit.

So, ultimately, when we consider this, what is this bill really going to do? It is going to give local communities the ability to make their decisions: do you wish to permit trading on Easter Sunday or do you not; do you wish to work on that day or do you not? Really, I think that is the hallmark of good government. In this party, we have faith in New Zealanders to make the right decisions, we have faith in the decisions that people make, and we are supporting them through this bill, in their local communities, to make their own decisions. I commend this bill to the House.

I want to address some of the issues that the previous speaker, Brett Hudson, has raised. Actually, I think that it was a remarkable speech, revealing an enormous amount about National’s ideology and where it is coming from—using the word “Stalinist”, for example. Very interesting.

This legislation is a dog’s breakfast, and we should boot it out. It is another example of this Government clawing back the few protections that ordinary working people have, and in this case it is about ensuring that the measly 3½ days per year that retail workers are guaranteed to have away from the job because the shops are closed—it will be reducing that to 2½ days, or, at least, it will not be. It will be kicking that decision to other people to make.

The only days that shops are required to be closed—and everybody has said this—are Easter Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day, and that is it. Even these days of closure do not actually apply to all the shops. They apply just to the ones that no longer are exempted, and there have been hundreds and hundreds of exemptions across the country. What this bill wants to do is make that inconsistency—basically, ensure that it happens everywhere.

So what it does is it says it is OK to have a piecemeal approach to the rights of working people—those people who work in the retail sector. What it does is it gives territorial authorities—local councils—the ability to decide whether shops can be open or not, after they have consulted their communities. I think that is a hospital pass. You know, this Government says it is all about choice and, in fact, Minister Michael Woodhouse—because I wrote it down; I will quote him. He said “It puts choice in the hands of communities.”, but, actually, what it does is it pushes extra costs on to those communities. They have to undertake a special consultative process costing $80,000 to $100,000 before they can make a decision about it, and we heard from councils during the select committee process that actually do not want to be spending that money. They asked that this Government make a decision that was consistent across the country.

It is the Government’s job to make the law. Governments and Parliament should be making the call. That is how you get a consistent approach. But this Government is kicking it to local government—to local councils—so that it can avoid making the decisions itself. Why would that be?

💬 Ria Bond: Pass the buck.

Why would it be passing the buck like that? Oh, maybe it has got something to do with the fact that the last 10 times bills like this have come to the House, members from that party have voted against it. This way, with this legislation, they can vote for it, and then they do not have to make the decision about whether shops are open on Easter Sunday. They can keep their hands clean and they can let a council make that decision. That is a poor performance from this Government. Contracting out the decision making—that is what it is doing.

In this country we have very few breaks from consumerism—3½ days is what we have got at the moment. We also have 3½ days when people who work in those shops are guaranteed family time, and I have seen research that was submitted during the select committee process from Unicef that showed that in New Zealand we have one of the lowest rates of family time in the world. The Minister and the members on that side are completely divorced from the reality of ordinary working people’s lives, because this is what happens. The “protections” that they are offering for retail workers who decline to work on Easter Sunday—and that is what it says in this legislation; that they can decline to work—mean nothing to ordinary working New Zealanders, because what happens in the retail environment is that you have a lot of women workers, you have a lot of workers who are working alongside their employers in isolated—

💬 Ria Bond: Hairdressers.

Hairdressers, of course, as my colleague from New Zealand First knows very well. You have people who are working alongside their employers. You have people who are desperate for every hour they can get because they are not on a fixed roster. You have people who actually—with our labour market at the moment—feel lucky to have a job.

The employment relationship between the employer and the employee is not a balanced or equal relationship. So the “protections” in this bill are that retail workers could take a personal grievance—wow—or they could take legal action—wow! How on earth are they going to do that and maintain the relationship with the employer? Because by the time you have taken a personal grievance, the relationship is on the rocks, and it was never an equal relationship to start off with in the first place.

What worries me with this out-of-touch thinking from the Government, and from that side of the House, is that those members have no clear understanding of what it means to work in a shop. They have no understanding of what it means to be working every hour you can to make that money, and they have no idea what it means to try to say no to your boss—no idea. And, because they have no idea, they might easily think that by slipping a couple of paragraphs into this piece of legislation, it is protection. That is rot.

They have also suggested that the unions could take their part in preventing that kind of—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Exploitation.

—well, I did not want to say “exploitation” but, yes—the exploitation of these ordinary working New Zealanders. They suggested that the unions should have a role in enforcing this. Well, that is very well and good, and it happens—it does happen—with our retail workers in larger workplaces, where they are able to organise collectively. But this Government has done the ordinary working people of New Zealand no favours by making it harder and harder and harder for unions to organise and for members to actually be able to act collectively to ensure that they do have decent working conditions. Even our unions do not have the resources to go from small workplace to small workplace to check on every single worker on Easter Sunday to make sure that they are adequately protected.

It is a huge piece of naivety for this Government to bring this piece of legislation to this House and say that it is about choice. It is not about choice. It does not give ordinary working New Zealanders choice. Actually, the way this Government is forcing its members to vote—it is not about choice there, either. I would have thought, with this being a conscience vote, that members on that side of the House and even yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will not bring—sit down when I am on my feet. The member will not bring the Speaker into this debate. You know the rules, and so does everybody else. If you want to make a political point, knock yourself out, but do not bring me into it.

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good on you.

In full flight, I was saying that members on that side of the House should have the choice to be able to exercise their conscience adequately, not make a decision that gives the decision-making power to councils to decide whether or not shops should be open in some parts of the country on Easter Sunday. On that side of the House, members should be stepping up and doing their jobs. Anything less is not doing their jobs.

Every single one of the Green Party MPs will be opposing this bill.

I am proud to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the third reading of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. That is because this bill is an absolute ticking time bomb for our territorial authorities, for local democracy to take effect, for our families, and for our employees and our employers, and I will speak to each one of these travesties throughout my call today.

Despite the fact that this bill has gone through all the passages that bills go through in this House, despite the fact that Local Government New Zealand and local councils did not want this Government to dump this complex, confusing, cost-adding exercise on to local councils, despite the fact that our families are being forced to spend less time together, and despite the fact of tinkering with employment rights and those unintended consequences on job seekers, this bill will now allow the statutory restrictions on shops opening on Easter Sunday to be removed by granting territorial authorities the power to create a local policy to permit all shops to open in all or some parts of the territorial districts on Easter Sunday.

New Zealand First believes that local government is the exerciser of democracy at the local level. This is a fundamental part of New Zealand’s governance structure, and what we have noticed is the scope and the nature of the changes to how councils handle this. Also, under this National-led Government, I would have thought it would consider a more appropriate approach to this—something like allowing our local councils to give our communities a choice as to whether shops open on Easter Sunday in their districts by holding a local referendum. They are now being forced to, through a policy mechanism. This would have, in fact, given our communities choices before local councils take on more financial burdens. We heard submitters voice the real impact and concern of the financial burden being unfair and unnecessary for them. Ratepayers, who are already struggling, and local councils, which do not want this financial burden, have been ignored.

New Zealand First has multiple issues with this bill. New Zealand First believes that this sets the tone of the legislation in its entirety and it does not take into satisfactory consideration the degree of citizen engagement with local body decision-making processes. This leads the general public and this side of the House to believe that this Government lacks the intestinal fortitude to actually apply common sense to this bill.

Let us touch on families. Families in New Zealand only get 3½ days per year to spend time together doing family things like holidays, special occasions, weddings, birthdays, and unveilings. This bill strips away the rights of families who choose to spend the Easter weekend together. Families understand that Easter Sunday is a restricted trading day, as it stands. However, it is surrounded by public holidays, which is why our families go away, to rejuvenate and to recharge. Families deserve to do that. This Government is refusing families their time together, when they can create rituals not based on shopping but on celebrating together, reconnecting, and making memories. Unlike members of this House, many families cannot afford to do that, as some members have become accustomed to being able to afford to do it.

This bill claims to recognise the significance of Easter Sunday and allows all shop workers the right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday, through the provision of their being able to initiate a personal grievance claim where an employer requests a shop worker to work on Easter Sunday or treats a shop worker adversely because he or she refused to work on that day. New Zealand First believes that the State must refrain from interference in the employer-employee relationship, instead leaving such matters to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), the vested body in New Zealand with the expertise to solve employment relationship problems, and that, furthermore, by legislating for such provisions within this bill, it erodes the ERA whilst also utilising resources unnecessarily, thus wasting taxpayers’ money.

This bill also allows for an employee and an employer, as the Minister alluded to earlier, to renegotiate annually whether they will work on Easter Sunday. It also allows for 14 days’ notice for the employee to retract that promise to their employer.

As I have said, I do not know what background Minister Woodhouse comes from or where most of the Government members come from, but surely, surely, they can see that this bill will create difficulties within the workplace. Employees and employers are still forced to go through the personal grievance process, which is harrowing, devastating, and absolutely unnecessary. Through the Committee of the whole House process the Minister did not address the unintended consequences for job seekers, and that in itself is a travesty.

Let us talk about this bill being a conscience vote. Public scrutiny of this bill has been given a boost by famous New Zealanders commenting on the travesties inside this bill. I just want to point out to the members of this House that in 1977, when Labour proposed to vote on party lines on this very issue, National strongly objected in a parliamentary debate, saying these sorts of issues should be conscience issues. National was disappointed at the time that Labour wanted to exercise the party whip on an issue like this. However, the National caucus has agreed to treat the current bill as a Government measure rather than a conscience issue, meaning that those members have agreed to vote alongside the party line.

A bill like this bill, which we are again looking at today, has been through this House eight times with the same old proposals that we have seen year after year. They have been repackaged and re-presented in Parliament in this year’s bill. As the Hon Michael Woodhouse said at its introduction to Parliament, the present bill is modelled on Todd McClay’s 2009 member’s bill, which was defeated in a conscience vote. Conscience votes are a significant constitutional safeguard against forcing members of Parliament to vote along party lines on ethical issues that transcend party politics. Easter trading has long been treated as one of these issues, and this was recognised by the Speaker in the votes on both the first and second readings of this bill. That is because National members agreed to vote along party lines, despite a long history of conscious votes on this issue.

New Zealand First members have the intestinal fortitude and will continue to oppose this bill because this bill is a “Get Stuffed New Zealand Bill” from that Government.

I just want to touch on two points that were raised. The first was a question—the member just seated, Ria Bond, asked where National members come from. I am not going to draw you any pictures, but it is pretty normal and natural. Second, there was a person earlier talking about lack of retail experience. I know many of my colleagues on this side have a lot of retail experience. For myself, it was working with my parents in their shoe shop, pumping gas at the petrol station, rolling ice creams, working in cinemas, and so forth.

What I want to say in my contribution today is, first and foremost, thank you to everyone who has submitted and been part of this process. Those of us on the Commerce Committee, myself included, sat and listened to a range of views, and I think it is important to note that there was a range of views—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Tell us what Caritas said.

—that were, understandably, really strongly held. Someone just asked about the view of Caritas. It is very clear what Caritas said. Representatives may even be here today. Caritas was opposing this bill, and, from its perspective, it is quite understandable why. But it has been a good process. I also received some feedback from constituents—not all that much—but again, they were quite split between those who see this as a special day and those who do not so much.

In fact, a number of businesses in my own electorate have approached me and said this is a good piece of legislation. As one business owner noted to me, Easter Sunday currently is not a public holiday; it is actually what we call a non-tradable day. The best way to imagine that is that businesses actually can call in staff to work on Easter Sunday. They can stack the shelves or clean the floors, but, fundamentally, what the business cannot do is open the doors to trade, so it is slightly incorrect to suggest that people are not already working on Easter Sunday.

Ultimately, I think this is about local democracy. We hear a lot in this Parliament at times about giving local councils and so forth a voice, and this is an opportunity here for local councils to speak and make decisions according to what their communities want in this space. I am quite comfortable with that.

In closing, I just wanted to make a couple of comments on the discussions we have had around conscious and conscience votes. First and foremost, all my votes are always conscious—I have never been known to not be conscious when making a vote. But, importantly, people are noting that this is a conscience vote. Strictly speaking, the Parliament has personal votes now. I think it is really important to note that, yes, all of us in National are casting a vote that is the same, and people are construing that quite wrongly—that, somehow, that is whipped or forced. No, that is actually 59 members of Parliament who have made a similar decision. But I want to point to something that I find—[Interruption] That is right, actually. I know, I have absolutely got to get the grammar right. That is right—59 National MPs have exercised their conscious conscience and decided to vote in a similar way.

But I think what I have found most fascinating—most fascinating—is that for all the vitriol and rhetoric from the other side about what we are doing as a bloc, I noticed in the second reading that not one Labour Party member voted against the whole group. All Labour Party members, as a group, voted against this bill in the second reading. All of New Zealand First voted against this in the second reading. All the Greens voted against this in the second reading. I find that a very strange irony—

💬 Hon Member: Coincidence.

—a coincidence, as one of my colleagues here said—that somehow we are being attacked for all making a conscious conscience decision, yet all the other parties seem to be voting as a bloc. With that little gem, I end my contribution.

A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Mojo Mathers.

We have had a lot of points raised by both sides, and I was going to go over and summarise some of these points that have been made opposing the bill—in particular, about local democracy and how this bill will foist the decision making on to local councils. The trouble is that it is a very divisive issue, and when divisive issues are decided at a local level, it divides communities. It does not build strong communities. We should not be foisting this decision on to local communities in that way. It is divisive for a reason. It is divisive because it is a deeply personal issue for some of us, and it is for me.

I want to acknowledge the comment that was made by Ria Bond that memories are made on Easter Day. That is absolutely the case for me. Easter has always been, in my family, one of the most precious days of the year. I have many memories of Easter, both as a child, when I maybe did not understand the deeper significance behind Easter, and as an adult and a mother of three children, celebrating Easter with them. We had our own family rituals around Easter because we had the time to build these rituals, we had the community space to build these things, and we had time out from pressure to do other things, because in our family nobody was being forced to go and work on that day. We could have the time to do these rituals, to go to church, to come back, to have an Easter egg hunt, and to read the story of why this is important. That is why, on a personal level, I am deeply saddened by this bill.

There are only 3½ days of the year at present when shop trading is restricted. These days are precious, and sacrificing one more of these days on the altar of consumerism grieves me personally very deeply. Consumerism and the juggernaut of it are what is trashing the world and the environment. What will this lead to? Will we be debating here in a couple of years whether to liberalise shop trading on Christmas Day, on Anzac Day, or on Good Friday? These days are precious. They are part of the fabric of New Zealand society and culture. We should keep them that way. Removing these days is inherently anti-family. Many people have made that point, but it is worth repeating. It is anti-family. New Zealand workers already have the lowest rate of family time in the world and some of the longest working hours. Families are already under significant stress—juggling multiple jobs, getting up at the crack of dawn, rushing out, and coming back. It is wrong to be undermining that even more with this bill. I oppose it utterly and completely.

Carmel Sepuloni—5 minutes.

I just want to refer back to the member Simon O’Connor’s comments, when he said that the National MPs have not been whipped to vote in one particular way on this issue. I think that member needs to be conscious of that fact that they do not have a collective conscience on this issue, because there have been different voting patterns in the past.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: What about Labour?

Actually, previous National MPs who have spoken on this bill have made it known in this House that, in fact, they have been whipped on this particular issue to vote in favour of this bill, Mr Woodhouse. We have not been whipped, on this side of the House; we just happen to all agree on this side of the House. However, they have stated really clearly that they have been made to vote in one particular way.

If we reflect on the four other times in the past 10 years when similar bills have come to the House, we see that there are current National MPs who are being forced to vote in a way that does not reflect the way they have voted in the past. So who are those MPs? We have got Bill English, who, three times in the last 10 years, has voted against similar bills; Gerry Brownlee, who, two times in the last 10 years, has voted against similar bills; Nick Smith, two times against; Chester Borrows, two times against; Chris Finlayson, one time against; Alfred Ngaro, against; Tim Macindoe, against twice; and Sam Lotu-Iiga, against twice. And today, unfortunately, the National Government, even though it talks about choice, has taken the choice away from its MPs to exercise their conscience in respect of this issue. So I think that needs to be the place where we start—just a few facts to start this debate off.

Can I just reflect, for myself, on an experience I had yesterday talking to about a hundred Victoria University students about what it is like to be a politician and talking about the realities of being a parent and a politician. At the end of my speech we had questions and answers, and one of the questions that came from the floor was: “How do you have any time with your family and with your children? It must be so difficult being a politician and being able to spend time with them.” I said: “Yes, it is. But, actually, it has become increasingly difficult for all New Zealanders to have time with their families.” Unfortunately, it is not just us as politicians who struggle with that. It is our people who are out there working the grassroots jobs in the factories, sometimes in two or three jobs a week, who have no time with their families. The reality is we are a time-poor society, and here this National Government is promoting a bill that will take away one of the very few days when families get to spend that time together. I think that that is shameful.

When we look at the days that we do have dedicated to spending time with families, when there are a few days where our stores, our shops, cannot be open, all we currently have are Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day, and the morning of Anzac Day.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: How long will that last?

And how long will they last—all 3½ of those days? That is all we give to families. That is all they can be assured of with regard to time they can spend with their families, and now, today, we are about to pass a bill that will remove one of those days. As I have said before, that is shameful.

We keep hearing from the other side about choice. We heard Brett Hudson talk about the choice of councils, because the Government is passing the buck here. Knowing that it would not have the numbers to do it in the House, the Government is passing it on to councils to make the decision, so those members are saying it is going to be the choice of councils. Councils are saying they do not want that decision. The Government is saying it is about choice for businesses and it is saying it is about choice for employees. Well, actually, it will not be the choice of employees. How will an employee be able to go to their boss and say—particularly, think of the person who might be on a 90-day trial period. How can they go to their boss and say: “I’m sorry, I know you want me to work on Easter Sunday, but actually for religious reasons I am not going to do that.”? Will they make it past the 90 days if they say that to their boss?

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Good question.

Good question—no, they will not. This bill does not protect vulnerable workers. This makes workers more vulnerable.

I think it is shameful that the Government has taken the right away from its members to vote on this very important matter. We will not be supporting this bill on this side of the House, not because we have been whipped to vote in one particular way, but because we do not agree with what the National Government is proposing here.

It gives me pleasure to take a short call on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. Before we go any further, I take exception, really, to being told I have been made to do something—and I am quite sure my mother will back up that comment any time you want her to. I think the nonsense we have heard from the other side of the House today is unbelievable and not worth speaking about any further.

For me, this bill has nothing to do with consumerism, religion, or even my personal view. In terms of my electorate of Rangitīkei, there is a large part that this bill will probably never apply to and never be required for, but we do have a piece of our electorate in the north that relies very heavily on the visitor market. Easter is a time when that part of my electorate is very busy. So whether the Ruapehu District Council ever wishes to pick this up and run with it or not is the council’s and the community’s opportunity. But, in my view, it could well be that that part of my electorate will take advantage of this type of opportunity.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Everything that couldn’t be bought on a Saturday—what nonsense.

It has got nothing to do with what can be bought on Saturday and what can be bought on Sunday. The challenge that we have as a community is that we have groups of people who move around the world and around New Zealand in ever-increasing numbers. They are here one minute and there the next, and for communities, businesses, and local collective communities to take the opportunity to serve those tourists, to create an environment that will bring tourists back into that area, I think is hugely important. This bill gives those people that opportunity. We have heard virtually nothing about this opportunity today, and I think it is really important that we do give them this opportunity.

The other thing I have heard a lot of today is that councils will be put out by making this decision. They do not have to make this decision. The issue does not have to be brought before councils at all. The community will tell the council if the decision needs to be put before it, and the community, the collective submissions, and the consultation period that they all go through will decide whether or not that community takes up the opportunity to implement this bill.

I support this bill. I think it has got some value to some parts of New Zealand, and certainly will have some value to the northern part of my electorate, should it choose to implement it. I support the bill.

Earlier today I attempted to table a submission before this House. It was organised by the Pacific sector in the trade union movement in Auckland. In less than 3 weeks they collected about 6,000 signatures. That petition calls on this Government that it requires that National Government members be given a free vote on this particular issue, and, in particular, the Pacific communities are asking that le afioga ia Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and Alfred Ngaro be allowed to vote with their conscience, because the community believes that if they were allowed to vote with their conscience they would vote against this particular bill. This is a petition that has been picked up by former All Blacks in Auckland afioga La’auli Michael Jones and afioga Aiolupotea Ofisa Tonu’u, and also by one of our very own boxing champions, who is here in the House, tofa ia To’aletai David Tua, who is also here with Fa’amoetauloa Jerome Mika.

I make mention of those individuals, and there are many others, including local board members of Ōtara, Māngere, Papatoetoe, and Ōtāhuhu, because this is a group of a new generation of Pacific people who support Easter Sunday. They see this country as their country. This is a generation who I refer to as the brown, beautiful, smart, talented, and with faith, who serve their communities, who serve their families, and upon whom have been bestowed matai titles by their families in recognition of their service to the community. They have said to me, and they have said to the many others who signed this petition, that Easter Sunday ought to be protected because it is a day on which working families throughout New Zealand are able to spend time with their families and are able to spend time with their communities.

I have observed how the members of the Government have responded when we have asked them about the conscience vote. I note that the Hon Bill English has admitted that, yes, he is against Easter trading, but none the less they have had a discussion and he follows what the rest of the group have said. I note that Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has been silent on the issue, but I note also that Mr Alfred Ngaro has been wishy-washy in his response. On some occasions, he appears to be supportive of Easter trading, and on other occasions in the past he has voted in support that Easter Sunday ought to be protected.

That reminds me—my elders once said to me: “Here is how you recognise certain people.” This is a saying from Samoa: “O le … ia e pei o le gogo, fa’atoa afio mai lava e avatu lau i’a.”—be like the gogo—the gogo would be the man-of-war bird, a frigate bird—high up on the clouds; it only comes down to pick up its fish. “Ae aua e te pei o le lago, leaga o le lago e ku ku solo.”—but do not be like the fly, for the fly stands here, stands there, stands everywhere, and you do not know where that fly stands.

I am reminded of that because of the way that this Government has behaved around this particular bill. On some occasions you will hear the Government members argue that, yes, this is good for the workforce. On other occasions, they say it is good for business—which one is it? Because you cannot have both—you cannot have both. You cannot say that this is going to be good for business as well as good for the working-class communities, because that is not what the working-class communities are saying.

Out of the 6,000 who signed the petition, a significant number of them are from the trade union movement, who want to be able to rest on Easter Sunday. But our fear now, out of these—there have only been 3½ days that we rest on, when the workers are able to spend time with their families and communities: that is Easter Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day, and, of course, Anzac Day. All 3 days have significant meaning to a community of faith—faith communities. That is not just Auckland—I am only talking about the petition that came from Auckland; those who signed this in Auckland—but we have not even talked about the other people of faith communities throughout this country who do not believe that this is good for New Zealand. They say that this is a matter of well-being for the community.

I have heard the Minister say that this is an issue of freedom—freedom for shopkeepers, freedom for councils, and freedom for the workforce. He does not bother talking about giving freedom to the National MPs to vote on this issue, though. I would say that even though they are passing the buck and saying that it will be up to the councils whether they decide to pass this policy on Easter trading or not, the fact remains that this is the final reading of this bill. When that Government whips all of its MPs to pass this bill, it will allow for Easter trading throughout every city of this country—mark my words. It will then enable the opening up of shops on Good Friday, Christmas Day, and Anzac Day.

💬 Todd Barclay: No, it won’t.

It will—it will. If those members can guarantee it, get up and say it is guaranteed that those shops will not open.

They argue that this bill will somehow fix the mishmash of opening hours that some parts of the country have. There are designated areas for tourism purposes where shopping is allowed, but if they give this to councils, some councils will open it up and other councils will not. But they are passing the buck, because it will be up to the communities whether they pressure their councils or not on whether the councils pass this policy or not. But the cost of the implementation of this bill is also borne by ratepayers throughout this country.

So any member of that Government who believes in the arguments that have been presented by Minister Woodhouse and by Key—and there is an article here that says “John Key playing loose with the facts on Easter Sunday trading law”, not telling the complete truth about these matters. Any member of Parliament who believes that this is not a conscience issue, who believes that because the Government is passing it to local government nothing will happen, and that Easter trading will not occur, is lying to themselves. Only a fool would accept that argument, and, worse, if they accept that argument—and this is the message that many in the Pacific community are looking at—it means that they are prepared to sell their values and principles. That is how Pacific peoples are seeing certain members of that Government because of the way that they will vote on this issue.

Mr David Tua has come here—he is not a political person, but this is an issue that is valuable to him—and he represents not just himself and his family but he belongs to a group of young brown New Zealanders who value Easter Sunday, who value Good Friday, who value Christmas Day, and who value Anzac Day. They believe that these days, as they are today when trading does not occur, are good for workers, good for families and good for communities.

I take on board what my colleague from the Green Party said earlier: it is an anti-family day, because what you are seeing is the imposition of workers being forced to work on these days on which they would normally rest and spend time with their families. What is the pattern here? What is the pattern that we are seeing here? More and more, the workforce is being asked to work longer and longer and longer hours for a mere pittance, while the select few who are buddies of this particular Government are able to make good money.

The most damning report on this Government that highlights this is the net worth report that was released by the statistics department last month, where we saw the net worth of a Pākehā family, on average, is $144,000; for Asian families, $33,000; for Māori families, $23,000; and for Pasifika families, $12,000—$12,000. That is a disgrace. That is a disgrace and is damning on this particular Government and these kinds of bills.

These kinds of bills, couched as freedom to the community, are really capturing that workforce, where a worker wanting not to work on Easter Sunday is going to be penalised—is going to be penalised by the employer, and will be penalised by others for not working on Easter Sunday. Unlike Michael Jones, who took the strong stance of not playing on Sunday but still earned money, many of the shop workers, if they say they do not work on Sundays—not only will they be penalised by their employers but they might not even have a job after that. That is the kind of country that this lot here is setting up, and it is disgraceful—disgraceful. I would hope that if they have any courage on that side—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

I remember Su’a William Sio. We served together on the Manukau City Council. He was a relatively competent and hard-working member of that council. Just as members of city councils and district councils up and down the country adequately represent their communities and make decisions on issues that Parliament has delegated to them, every single month and week in New Zealand—just as Su’a William Sio was able to on the Manukau City Council—after this piece of legislation has been passed, members of city councils will be able to accurately represent their communities on a decision about whether their area should be able to have trading on Easter Sunday. That is what this is about. It is about allowing the choice for local areas where they wish to allow their shops in their district, or in a particular part of their district, to trade. It is about allowing them the choice to make that decision.

There have been a lot of inflammatory words said about this bill. It is, apparently, disgraceful. It is, apparently, abhorrent. It is, apparently, awful, and so many terrible things have been said about it. Carmel Sepuloni stood up in the House and said that “The Labour Party is not whipped. We just all happen to agree.” The Government members all happen to agree that this is a process issue that should be given to local authorities to decide about their local area. We all happen to agree as well. The only disgraceful and abhorrent behaviour I have seen in this House so far was members of the Labour Party, in a self-righteous, pious way, using religious affiliation and using ethnic identity to bully other members of Parliament. That is disgraceful, that is abhorrent, and I do not agree with it.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at being called a bully, and I ask that the member withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): There has been quite a bit of licence in this debate and some comments have been made, and I have heard most of it. I know the member’s speech is coming to an end, so I will ask the member Jami-Lee Ross just to confine his comments to what the third reading of this bill is actually about.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today a member was asked to leave the Chamber over the matter of a member taking offence at something that that member said. The comment was not unparliamentary, but it was determined by the Deputy Speaker that if offence was taken, the member should withdraw and apologise—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): OK—the member will sit. If the member has taken offence, I will ask the member to withdraw.

I am happy to withdraw and apologise.

This bill is all about giving local authorities the choice to make a decision about their districts. The National members of Parliament have made a choice. They have made a choice to back a piece of legislation that allows a local area to make a decision about Easter trading. There are significant measures that have been put into the bill to protect employees. There has been a lot of thought given to the mechanisms by which a council can make its decision, and this is an opportunity for Parliament to say that for local areas, where there has been disenfranchised local areas in the past—where a neighbouring district has been able to trade and one has not—we are going to allow them to make the decision for themselves.

I utterly reject the awful tactics that have been used by the Labour Party, and we are proud of the decisions we are making today.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to seek leave of the House to table a petition to protect Easter Sunday, calling on the National Government to allow its MPs a free vote on this issue. Six thousand people have signed this petition.

You were free to discuss the petition during the course of the speech that you made, and you did so. The petition has been declined in question time, and that is the end of the matter.