Bond RiaRIA BOND (NZ First): I am proud to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the second reading of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. This bill seeks to allow the statutory restrictions on shops opening on Easter Sunday to be removed by granting territorial authorities the power to create by-laws to permit all shops to open in all or part of their districts on Easter Sunday. This bill proposes to allow communities the choice about whether shops open on Easter Sunday in their district. New Zealand First disagrees with the purpose of the bill. If this were the case then this bill would have provisions to allow for a local referendum at a fraction of the cost of the proposed by-law mechanisms inside this bill. New Zealand First believes that this overarching assumption sets the tone of the legislation in its entirety but does not take into satisfactory consideration the degree of citizen engagement with local body decision-making processes. The bill aims to achieve these means by granting territorial authorities a limited power to create by-laws that allow shop trading in defined areas within their boundaries on Easter Sunday enabling shop workers the ability to refuse work on Easter Sunday without giving a reason and enabling shop workers to bring a personal grievance against an employer who compels them to work on Easter Sunday or treats them adversely because of their refusal to work on Easter Sunday. I do want to thank the Commerce Committee advisers for their patience throughout the process of the select committee going through this bill in its entirety. This bill has proven to be a very tricky bill and at times the members of the select committee agreed passionately to disagree in every way possible. New Zealand First supported this bill in the first reading in order to allow the select committee to scrutinise this bill. This is a fundamental process of Government and allows for the knowledge of our advisers to assist the select committee in that process. The select committee had a good range of submitters. In total we had 107 submissions and we heard from 17 submitters orally. There was a good variety of submitters: from local councils Churches Family First Caritas the Retail and Wholesale Merchants Association of New Zealand the Salvation Army the tourism industry and many more who took part in providing the select committee with their views on this particular bill which overall actually had quite a common thread of concern. Most councils felt that the decision-making process should remain at central government level. They did not want to make the decision for their local council to choose to create a by-law and have to actually enact that by-law. This was primarily due to the costs that they could not in good conscience pass on to their ratepayers particularly when many districts already have significant financial challenges. We have seen this in my home town of Invercargill where a proposed project to fund water mains had failed quite spectacularly and was under constant pressure due to financial demands in other areas. Such a by-law would add more pressure on local councils which could face costs ranging between $60000 and $120000. This cost was the catalyst for local councils throughout New Zealand to determine why the responsibility should sit with central government to make the decision. New Zealand First feels very strongly that local councils should call for a local referendum because this bill for members of this House will be a conscious vote. Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: A conscious vote?RIA BOND: So why not let the good people of our country—our ratepayers—decide as well. I am sure Dr Coleman that when you have got a cold you cannot say words properly either. New Zealand First provided a minority report through the select committee process. New Zealand First does not support any of the amendments presented to the Commerce Committee because the costs to councils would remain the same. The complexity of this bill would remain the same. The issues with this bill would also remain the same. Fundamentally the main purpose of this bill was initially to allow councils to consult with their communities regarding Easter Sunday trading and that employees are given the opportunity to decline work without repercussion. However this has unintended consequences on employees and employers and I will give two example of this. If a person on a job seeker's benefit went to their first job interview and was called back to that same business for a second interview when the clause becomes a condition to accepting the position for the employee but that potential employee declines to work on Easter Sunday due to the fact that they have an unveiling for a loved family member to attend they will not get offered the job. They would then go back to Work and Income and tell them that they did not get the job because they were not available to work on Easter Sunday. What happens to these people then? I will tell you what happens to them. They will get stood down from their benefit and this is clearly an unintended consequence for job seekers. This is just one example amongst many more that I can give on this particular issue within this bill. If those workers who are actually already working in the workplace have their employer negotiate with them to work on Easter Sunday and they decide to decline this request then their employer will absolutely—and I understand this—be annoyed with their top-performing employee for not capturing the potential income that the employee could provide to the business. The relationship breaks down; the employee seeks the only method of protection which is to take a personal grievance against their employer. This also goes vice versa. When that relationship breaks down further in the workplace and the employee decides to leave to get a new job somewhere else they must disclose that they took a personal grievance against their previous employer. This is tinkering with the provisions of employment and it is riddled with unintended consequences. I would like to now briefly address the submission from Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand which put forward a very strong submission that centred on the rights of family to spend time together to strengthen the family bonds and to be able to go away as a family over the Easter weekend. Its submission was a call to keep for New Zealanders 3½ days per year shop-free so as to be able to focus on our families. We know that there is a lot of pressure on families in today's world so New Zealand First can sympathise with families who are struggling to find time to spend with each other. In conclusion 10 times there have been bills like this brought to the House and 10 times those bills have been voted down and lost. New Zealanders work the second-longest number of hours in the OECD. New Zealand has some of the most liberal shop trading hours in the world with only 3½ days annually that are restricted and aside from certain sectors absolutely no restriction on opening hours. New Zealand First believes that such nationwide change is undemocratic when local elections can be used for a local referendum on whether to liberalise local trading hours further. Although some would say that it is too late for the 2016 local elections that is not the case. It would be suitable to hold a local referendum thereby saving costs for territorial authorities and allowing each community to decide for itself by asking a simple question: Do you want shops in your district to open on Easter Sunday?". Thank you."