Bond RiaRIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. New Zealand First continues to oppose Supplementary Order Paper 179 in the name of Minister Woodhouse because fundamentally the complexity of this bill will still remain the same the cost to local councils will still remain the same and the tinkering and confusion that will come about under the sections relating to employment will still remain the same. New Zealand First has multiple issues with Part 1 of this bill and I want to talk about new section 5A in clause 15. What New Zealand First wants to know is how this bill will ensure that local councils are not financially burdened by this poorly constructed bill that proposes to change from a bylaw-setting instrument to a policy-setting instrument. We propose that the cost to local councils unfortunately will still remain the same. Throughout the select committee process we heard from Local Government New Zealand and from local councils about the immense concern relative to the costs that this would force on the ratepayers inside of their communities. That in itself was quite contentious for them. What we are thinking about is the impact on our local community and I want to bring to the attention of the Minister in the chair Michael Woodhouse—and I am quite sure he is aware of it at the moment—the fact that the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) is before the Local Government and Environment Committee. This proposes to councils that they should amalgamate services and dares to suggest that local councils do not know how to remain fiscally sound and fiscally responsible. Yet I ask that Minister and that National-led Government how this bill proposes to go forward when it is going to lump on local councils anywhere between $20000 and $80000 whether this is a by-law instrument or a local-policy instrument. New Zealand First feels that there is a better solution for the National-led Government and that is to give our local territorial authorities the ability to give local communities the choice as whether in their district or in parts of their district shops can open on Easter Sunday. That of course would be to actually hold a local referendum so truly before the cost—Brett Hudson: She talks about cost.RIA BOND: Mr Hudson before the cost hits the ratepayers let us be responsible. Hold a local referendum before it gets to that point. The last local referendum was held on fluoride in New Zealand and that was under $14000 yet that Government expects local councils to spend between $20000 and $80000. How is that responsible? That is what New Zealand First asks. The responsibility Mr Hudson would actually be to hold a local referendum. The next issue that New Zealand First has is in relation to new sections 5H 5G 5I 5J 5JA 5K and 5L. What those sections inserted by clause 15 cover is the employment opportunities of employees. This bill proposes that employees will in fact have protection. Well I beg to differ. As a former employee and employer this area of the bill makes no sense whatsoever in terms of being put into place within our businesses and I wonder why the Minister and the National Government did not recognise the issues the fishhooks and the absolute ignorance and arrogance that these clauses will put into our local businesses around this country. I will tell you why. What this bill proposes will in fact do the exact opposite—the exact opposite. The Minister has stated that employees and employers must annually renegotiate their availability to work on Easter Sunday. However this provision inside this clause cannot actually be put into the employment contract. This bill is complex it is confusing and it is going to fail to go forward with the intent of this area. The penalty will be on the employee and the employer. In the second reading I brought up an issue that the Minister has not addressed and that is the fact that if you are on the jobseeker support benefit and you are under the care I guess of Work and Income and a manager and you go through the process of applying for a job—because you have to be seen to be actively seeking work—this provision is the one thing that hinders your being able to accept that employment. That is an unintended consequence for the job seeker who has to go back to Work and Income. Job seekers must have set out that they are actively seeking employment and this is where this bill becomes unstuck for the job seekers. They have to go back and tell their Work and Income manager that they are unable to take the job due to the fact that they could and I use this as an example have to go away to a family unveiling on Easter weekend because that is when New Zealanders go and do family events just like this one. They run the risk of having their benefit taken away from them because that will be seen as not actively seeking employment. This bill fails job seekers. It fails in terms of protection for current employees because they must take on board the fact that each year they have to review whether or not they are available to work. That employee is then expected to work with the employer and that employer under good faith as employment contracts are negotiated is meant to have no opinion and no frustration in terms of their star employee being able and eligible to work on Easter Sunday. That puts pressure on them and the only way that that employee cannot be mistreated in the business—as a former business owner I know that that does happen. I know that happens and that is why these provisions in this bill are not fit for purpose. I want to comment too on the fact that employees have to go through a personal grievance process. I do not know what background the Minister came from before he came to this House but clearly the Minister has no idea how devastating this can be for an employee a workplace and a family. That is a fact. I have discussed the fact that this is meant to be an area that is meant to protect employees. I can certainly say that this is not the case at all. New Zealand First will absolutely be opposing this bill. Thank you.