Sepuloni CarmelCARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): We were very surprised—well those of us who have not been on the Commerce Committee or as engaged as my colleague here Iain Lees-Galloway our labour spokesperson—that the Government had decided to bring this bill to the House but not allow its members to have a conscience vote on it. So I think that is where I will start. Looking back reflecting on this issue we see that the bill has been brought to the House four times in the last 10 years and each time we have had the opportunity to take a conscience vote. When National has been at the helm it has also allowed parties to have a conscience vote but tonight is a different situation and the National Government has instead whipped its whole caucus to vote the same way. So we are really disappointed with that and in fact we really feel for some of the National MPs because we know that in the past they have taken different stances from each other. We see that Bill English has actually voted against this particular issue three times; Gerry Brownlee has voted against it two times; Nick Smith two times; Chester Borrows four times—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to ask the member to—well first of all I will correct her grammar. It is twice". But the next point that I will make is that although one can make passing reference I think to the style of voting we are actually talking about the detail of the bill. The comments she has made would be absolutely appropriate at second reading and at third reading.CARMEL SEPULONI: OK Mr Chair that is fine. So those members have not been given the option of a conscience vote and the reason I raise that is actually the views in the House reflect the general public's views on this particular bill. We know that some of the National MPs actually like the rest of the House have their own views on why they should not support this bill and some of them do not support it for religious reasons. So it is really disappointing that the leadership of the National Government has removed the right for its members to have that freedom of choice that freedom of religion to vote based on their conscience. I do want to say that we have been lobbied quite strongly by members from our Pacific community on this particular issue. Many people in this Committee will know that the Pacific community has probably one of the highest rates of Christianity if not the highest rate of Christianity in the country. I am not saying that the fact that Easter Sunday is a religious holiday is the be-all and end-all and that everyone must abide by that but what I would say is that particular section of the community has expressed concern about this bill and about the fact that the National Government has forced all of its MPs including its two Pacific MPs to vote in favour of this bill. The large majority of the Pacific community whom we have spoken to—many of whom are Christians—actually fundamentally oppose this bill. I do need to make that point on behalf of the Pacific community. [Interruption] Excuse me?Simon O'Connor: When was the last time that member ever listened to anything to do with religion?CARMEL SEPULONI: So the National member is questioning my level of religion—my Christianity. I think that that member needs to reflect on himself and not question my religious beliefs and my level of Christianity. In fact that actually reflects his actual level of Christianity—that he is questioning mine.Iain Lees-Galloway: How judgmental.CARMEL SEPULONI: So judgmental. Anyway going back to things that matter like our Pacific communities' view on this bill can I just say there has been quite a strong campaign against it there is a high level of disappointment with the National Government on it and I think that going into the next election things like this will be remembered.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): This is the second warning on the same issue. What we are debating now are the details of Parts 1 and 2 the three clauses and the Supplementary Order Paper. There is actually quite a big range and I am sure there are parts in this bill and the clauses in it that her communities object to. She should refer to them.CARMEL SEPULONI: Getting on to the bill I just want to say that one of the big concerns that we have with this bill is that the bill actually passes the buck to local councils with regard to making the decision about whether or not people are going to be allowed to shop on these particular days. Our concern with that is it will create inconsistencies across the country and that could result in a shambles with regard to the way in which this is rolled out. We are concerned as my colleague Mojo Mathers has said because people do deserve to have time off and people deserve to have guaranteed days off. Despite the fact that the National Government has said that people do have choice well actually if they are in situations where there is power play at stake or where in some way or another they are feeling insecure about their work—and I want to refer to people who may be on a 90-day trial period—they would be less likely to say: "Actually no. I don't want to work on this holiday; I want to have that day off." They would be concerned about whether or not that would result in them losing their job. So it is easy for the National Government to say it is about choice. Some people have less choice. Those who are vulnerable are the ones who do have the least choice. So that is one of the reasons that we cannot support this bill. We think it is absolutely unrealistic to say that people can refuse to work on Easter Sunday because people will feel like they will be penalised. We are really concerned that through this bill National is not proposing any extra compensation for working on Easter Sunday. It expects people to give up that important family time—a day that traditionally they have been able to have off because there has been no shopping on that day. Now National is saying that people are going to have to work on that day. They could say no to their employer which we know is going to be very difficult but also on top of that if they do work they will not be compensated for having worked on that day. We do not support that. We also do not support the fact that more cost is going to be pushed on to councils at a time when we feel the Government is pressuring councils to lower costs. So again I just want to reiterate that we are not supporting this bill for a number of reasons. I took a while to warm up to this but I think I got there. I would just like to state again speaking on behalf of our Pacific community which does not support this bill and as a Pacific member of Parliament—a Christian Pacific member of Parliament—I also do not support this bill."