Hudson Brett; Mallard TrevorBRETT HUDSON (National): It is wonderful to be able to speak again on this the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill because the great theme of the night is about choice and I will take the time again to talk about how this bill actually provides that choice. One of the first ways it is illustrated actually is that many members have made comments tonight about the National caucus being whipped to vote in a certain way. I think—and I contend—that those members opposite do not actually understand choice and how choice can be exhibited because you see as a member of the caucus I can assure them of what happened. Members in a caucus meeting discussed this matter and individually we agreed that we would permit our whips to express our votes by proxies. Individually we have chosen that we will support this bill and that we will have our whips express those votes for us. This is except for those of us lucky to be in the Chamber of course; when the vote is taken we will mark our names off in the customary way. But more than that the bill is all about choice. It provides choice to families: those families who want to shop on Easter Sunday where it is permissible can do so; those who do not wish to will not have to. Those employees who do not want to work on Easter Sunday will not and cannot be forced to. Local communities that want shopping available in part or all of their communities will be able to. Similarly local communities that do not want retail open or trading on Easter Sunday will be able to maintain what is probably the status quo for them and not permit that to happen. Authorities have choice (1) in whether to seek a change to the default position and (2) in the process of how they consult with their communities. This bill is all about choice. One thing that I find very troubling about elements the members have raised is that the amendments to section 5 of the principal Act are very clear that employees' rights to refuse to work on this day for reasons of their own which they do not have to express or justify are protected. They are protected with the full force of employee protections under New Zealand statute. Yet tonight we have heard as we have in previous readings members opposite claim that those protections will have no force no effect and that employees will be too scared to use them. What they have actually been saying in effect is that employee protection in New Zealand does not work full stop. Clearly their view is that we have an amount of legislation on our books that simply does not work and can never work because employees will always be too scared to use it. What I contend is that what they are really saying is they do believe in those protections when it suits them to but they do not believe that those protections will work when it is a measure put forward by this Government. I think that is quite sad. But overall it is coloured even further in that by taking that position in effect what they are seeking to do is limit choice whereas this Government—this party the party of choice and the party of free will—is saying: Let's give our communities the opportunity to make their own decisions." Ultimately if I look at all of the dealings that I have had with councillors whether they are city district or regional councillors they all believe that local communities should have a voice should have a say in how their communities operate—what is available and what is not. It is quite interesting actually because members have pointed out that a number of the authorities or representatives of the authorities said that they would not necessarily want things done this way. Some expressed a view that Parliament should just do a blanket set of regulations for all of New Zealand which is odd really because that is the antithesis of giving local communities a choice—you simply get central government to give one edict which I am sure is not going to please everyone everywhere. But the other part I would note particularly to those representatives from those authorities is that if one wants to have the authority to make decisions particularly across a broad range of areas one has to accept that you have to deal with the tough decisions and not just the easy ones. I would note that not one of those authorities that were saying that they did not want this addressed in this manner—not one of them—were offering to relinquish the general competence authority granted to them in the early 2000s. My message to them is: if you want to make decisions if you want the authority to make calls in your community you have a responsibility to deal not only with the easy problems but also the tough ones.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Adrian Rurawhe I have yet another leave to seek. The leave that I am now seeking—which again it is my understanding was the intention of the House when it was circulated—is that Part 2 and the schedule standing part be taken as one question. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. I think we have got there."