Auchinvole Chris: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9326] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. I initially supported the previous bill on this topic Jacqui Dean’s Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill which was so ably spoken to by my colleague Mark Blumsky. I appreciate having been a member of the Commerce Committee that examined these bills that it was decided to run the two together as they had a similar objective. My choice to support Jacqui Dean’s bill was driven mostly by the fact that it obliged Parliament to actually make a decision on the issue that it would then be responsible for implementing. The difference between that bill and this one is that with this one Parliament is making a decision that will then be devolved to local authorities which will have to make their own decisions. 
I note the point raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters but it raises in my mind the difficulty that if Parliament cannot make up its mind on this issue and apply it why do we imagine that it will be easier for local authorities to make up their minds? I seem to recall a measure of support for that particular view within the membership of the Commerce Committee—and it was an enjoyable committee to be part of. However that option has gone and we now have to look at this bill which requires the territorial authorities to decide whether retail shops in their districts may open on Easter Sunday and also requires the territorial authorities before making any such decisions to consult their communities by adopting the special consultative procedure provided for in section 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. I am personally not comfortable with the way this matter has been handled but I accept that it is part of the bill and is probably now not significant enough to seek to amend it. 
This particular bill relates to shop trading over Easter which has always in my memory been a contentious issue. I guess that it is a case of those who want it most not achieving everything they expect from it but those who want it least finding hopefully that it is not quite as bad as they expected it might be. There have been a considerable number of submissions on this bill and I was impressed by the sincerity of the carefully considered presentations that the committee received. 
There were religious objections which to some extent have been modified and lessened perhaps by the exclusion of Good Friday from this particular bill. I think that will be very pleasing to a number of people whom I know had serious concerns over that. As a practising Presbyterian I have full regard for the religious significance of Easter. Indeed for many Easter is a more sacramentally significant season in the Church than Christmas is. Throughout my career though I have engaged in a number of activities associated with agricultural work and agricultural work is a 7-day-a-week industry. I have frequently been obliged to work over the Easter period. I have never though—and I have gone right through my mind on this—been prevented from making it to church on Good Friday or on Easter Sunday. The reason is that the Churches recognise that not everyone has discretion about when he or she can attend church and usually within communities services are held at a variety of times so that options are available. People might not always go to the churches they usually go to but as I say I have never had difficulty in getting to a church. 
Speaking entirely for myself—I feel that in religious matters I am authorised to speak of my own feelings and not of those of others—I have never felt disturbed from a religious point of view by anything that others choose to do on Easter Day. I do not think the majority of devout people expect to impose their personal religious views on others who do not hold them. 
A most compelling argument though to my mind came from my parliamentary colleagues in the Maori Party who expressed extreme concern during the select committee discussion over the fact that this bill affects holidays and family get-together opportunities. I think it was Hone Harawira when speaking to this bill who said—[ 
Interruption 
]—ha ha; I am getting a measure of support here—that Easter is really the only 4-day occasion when we can have a holiday legitimately. In other words—I think these were his words but I will make them my own—people do not have to throw sickies or invent reasons for not being at work. That is a significant feature of Easter—the 4-day holiday. I know that in the area I live in on the West Coast grandmothers always expect grandchildren and families to come home for Easter. 
I am not sure that the select committee met that objection by building in safeguards for worker protection but the bill does override conditions of employment to the extent that they are inconsistent with the requirement of the bill. I have listened to previous speakers and I really wondered whether the people speaking recently from the other side of the House were actually Steve Chadwick’s friends or not. They seemed to ignore the fact that the select committee had put quite a lot of work into the matter of employment conditions and avoidance of compulsion in terms of people working over the holiday period. 
There is no doubt though that it is no accident we have two bills going in the same direction from both sides of the House. The opportunity to shake off some of the regulated aspects of our lives does not come very often these days under this Government but—by gosh—the events of today and perhaps over the next few weeks will probably change that. Someone said to me today: “You know Chris political power ebbs and flows; the flows are getting longer and the ebbs are getting shorter.” I thought I would pass that on to my friend Charles Chauvel; I knew that he would like it. The flows are getting longer for National and the ebbs are getting shorter—and Labour members know it. 
The trade union representation at the select committee was sincerely delivered and concentrated on conditions of pay compulsion to work etc. Again it was an understandable approach because those people were representing their members. 
I listened to speakers on the previous bill and I was a little surprised at some of the views expressed. They were clinging to the sanctity of the Easter holidays without any reference to the religiosity of the holiday’s origin. As a liberal Christian I see no reason for the implication that religious holidays should be imposed on those without religious beliefs practices or affiliation. I believe in religious freedom and I believe in personal freedom—the freedom to adhere to religion or not. I guess though that the reality is that Easter is seen as a general holiday rather than purely a religious one. 
That there is a demand for Easter trading is a reality. For food distributors I understand that Easter is already bigger than Christmas in terms of turnover. I note the strident call of members of the Labour Government speaking on behalf of their particular interests about working hours and about people being without the choice whether to work. This bill as noted by Mr Flavell embodies worker protection. As a member of the select committee I am conscious of the efforts of the committee to ensure worker and employee protection. There is no compulsion to work and no penalty for deciding not to—and any opinion beyond that shows a lack of faith in the parliamentary process. I would have expected better from a Government that makes all sorts of claims about itself—claims that are fading. The long flows are coming and the short ebbs. We always know when there is trouble in the Labour Party leadership: if we look at the junior whip we see that his smile has become fixed; his smile has become a Botox smile—Botox is injected in there. He says that everything is fine but the very bits of paper he picks up shake when he reads them. 
I suggest that members stand back a little from ideological issues and look at the situation from a practical and commercial point of view. Where I live on the West Coast of the South Island most shops shut at 5 p.m. on the knocker Monday to Friday. Come the weekend most Coasters exercise their work-life balance and pursue recreation sport or family activities. I can honestly say that work-life balance was practised on the West Coast long before it became a buzzword long before it came into vogue. If many shops on the coast were open at Easter I doubt they would get much trade. 
This bill does not make it compulsory for shops to open. It does not compel people to work. But it does allow choice. It will not damage religious celebration. On that basis I support the bill. It is significant that it is one of two members’ bills that go in the same direction. I think it merits a wide range of support. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.