Clark DavidDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): In some ways I am actually picking up where my colleague left off. It is about the changes and I too sat on the Commerce Committee and heard the similar argument from local councils that they did not wish to take that responsibility over. I want to pick up some of the comments Minister Woodhouse made in his contribution before the dinner break when he contended that these changes in Supplementary Order Paper 179 in his name were about reducing the shambles that the legislation currently is. He also contended that the bill was about giving more choice. Those were the two phrases the Minister used and he then tried to back them up using examples out of the bill although he was a little light on the examples I have to say. I want to say right back to the Minister and put into the debate that in fact it does not achieve those purposes. The changes that he is proposing in Supplementary Order Paper 179 include for example the change to subpart 1 of Part 2 in clause 15 which replaces regulation" with "Easter Sunday shop trading policies". His proposal to change the nature of what local councils might do is as my colleague has said not achieving an active choice. The councils still did not want that as a change. They said: "We do not want that responsibility. Whether it comes in the form of regulation or policies it makes no difference." So it is not actually clarifying that or making it easier for those local councils as the Minister has said. I would be interested in his response to what those local councils said which was not something that he addressed in the contribution that I heard. It was something that he skirted around but if he is going to make those contentions in the Committee and in this debate then I feel that the Minister does need to back up that assertion that this will reduce the burden somehow or make it clearer for councils and somehow appease them and the wishes that they had expressed in that select committee. The Minister talked a lot about choice and about this bill giving choice. I want to contend that it actually reduces choice for workers. What we know will happen as a result of these changes is that more pressure will go on people particularly those who are most vulnerable. Many people in the retail sector are on low incomes barely meeting their bills and it is those people who I contend have less choice. They will feel the pressure to turn up when they are asked. There are some clauses in here in the bill that talk about personal grievances and so on and they assume a level of access to legal advice and a level of confidence and competence in those people that does not necessarily reflect the reality of every vulnerable person in the workplace. So what in fact will result from all of this is that choice will be taken away from those people. Those people have the option currently of knowing that at some points—it is more than an option; they know—they will have time with their families and time for rest relaxation and recreation in those times when shops are currently not permitted to trade. That choice will be taken away from them. So in fact what is happening is that choice is being taken away from those who most need it. Thus the bill is not achieving the purpose the Minister asserts when he says it is increasing choice. It is in fact removing choice from those who already have the fewest choices in our society. So that is the crux of what I am going to say. That flows through to many of the matters in the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper. So if we look at clause 13 that is exactly where it is enacted—where you are replacing the need for a by-law with a requirement for a shop trading policy. As I have suggested the local councils do not really see a significant difference between the two. They still see the burden put on them for decision making for running processes and for making the same kinds of decisions that they would be making effectively with a by-law. So when the Minister wants to assert that it somehow makes it clearer or simpler it is simply not true in my view. Further in asserting that it makes things simpler the Minister does not speak about for example the lot of tourists who arrive in this country and might want to exercise their consumer rights in the retail sector throughout the country. When they travel through the country they are going to find not a reduced number of exemptions to the overall policy but a more mixed response to this legislation because it very much leaves it up to the local councils. Every place in the country may have a different take on this where currently there are only one or two exemptions. Tourists I would suggest would not expect places to be open generally unless they knew of the two obvious examples which are two main tourist centres. Far from making this simpler the Minister is in fact increasing things. He talked about it being a shambles and as I will assert it is actually more of a shambles. Interestingly the Minister himself said the bill was very far from a gold standard which I thought was a very frank admission on a day when we have also been reflecting on the luggage bill. I do not want to say too much about that but what are we doing in this House if the Minister is bringing a bill to the House that he is not behind and thinks is not the correct solution—or is far from a gold standard—where we are debating general bills? That suggests to me that the appropriate way forward for this would be for the Minister to hold this bill over—for him to work further with local councils and see whether he cannot resolve the conflict that has been brought to the House and actually work with them to look at whether there is another way of doing this because they are not happy with what he is putting forward in his Supplementary Order Paper. That is what we have heard directly as a select committee—local councils do not want the responsibility for making this decision. They feel that it is a decision for central government to make so that policies can be consistent across New Zealand so they do not have to put more resources into making decisions at a local level that could be contested and that they are not funded extra for. I can understand that and I think that members of the Committee can understand that. We all have connections with local councils at various times and understand the burden that is put on them without funding frequently from central government. In concluding I wish to oppose many of the clauses that the Minister has in his Supplementary Order Paper. I really do not think that they achieve his stated purpose of making things simpler and getting rid of the shambles that he describes and I do see some irony in the fact that he himself is not willing to say that this is the gold standard way of fixing them. I think this bill is not about giving choice. The changes he is making are actually reducing choice for those in our society who need it most."