Cunliffe David: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
Cunliffe David: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11976] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I rise to indicate to the House that I will be opposing this bill in its entirety. I say so acknowledging the considerable work that both current and former members of the Commerce Committee have spent on this vexed and emotional issue and I wish in particular to acknowledge the hard work by the Minister of Labour and MP for Tauranga the Hon Margaret Wilson and my friend and colleague the MP for Rotorua Steve Chadwick who has spent many hours on the issues of shop trading for her constituents in the tourist industry. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is deliberately misleading the House by referring to the Hon Margaret Wilson as the MP for Tauranga. The MP for Tauranga normally occupies the seat I occupy right now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is out of order to suggest that a member is deliberately misleading the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I should have said the MP from Tauranga. I apologise to the House. I wish to set out the grounds upon which in good conscience I must oppose this bill and there are three. The first is the workers’ rights argument. I believe that this is extremely important. The argument that the bill offers sufficient protection for workers is I believe plainly naive. Powerless low-skilled low-wage workers who can be sacked and rehired at a moment’s notice are not in a position despite legislative protection to protect themselves from the pressures that employers will inevitably bring to bear. 
The second ground is that the same test fails in respect of lease-holder protections. Those who are in lease deals with shopping centres will face the same pressures as workers. 
The combined effects of these two issues on families will be corrosive. There are only Good Friday Easter Sunday Anzac Day and Christmas Day that we observe as national holidays and I believe that families deserve certainly no less and probably more. 
But at the heart of this issue is a more complex issue. It is one with very deep and ancient philosophical roots and it is that that drives my conscience. That is the debate about whether this bill gives proper effect to the separation of State and religious affairs and there are two views on it. The former view which other speakers have mentioned is that it is appropriate if the State is not to favour any religion for it not to stand in the way of commercial activities that might conflict with any faith. It follows from this perspective that the eventual answer is that no religion should have a place in our society and that rather than being free open and diverse we would be compulsorily secular. That is not a view I espouse although I understand its roots. 
The other view recognises the importance of a range of religions to our cultural spiritual and national life. It acknowledges census data that shows that even now the Christian religion is still the predominant religion in New Zealand. Easter is that faith’s primary most sacred festival and it deserves as a matter of civic affairs to be respected. 
I also acknowledge that both Easter and Christmas have overwhelming cultural significance for families. How often have we heard grandparents long for their families to be reunited with them at Christmas or at Easter and long for that for 6 months of the year between festivals? Will we take that opportunity away from our grandparents because parents are busy working in shops that have been forced to open because of competitive pressure? I say not. 
Let me add a personal note if I might. I come to the Labour Party from the Christian socialist tradition and I am proud to acknowledge that. The Labour Party is a broad organisation that draws upon many sets of philosophical roots. This bill offends both of those traditions. It offends workers’ rights because it places intolerable pressure on the powerless in our society and it offends not only Christian but broader religious rights because it says that the implication of tolerance is a cultural desert. That is not the necessary conclusion. There are many many ways in which essential services could be provided on Easter Sunday as indeed they are now without liberalising that most sacred of festivals in the way that this bill suggests. 
This is a difficult issue. It is an emotional issue and it is an issue that draws upon deep philosophical traditions. I feel compelled to state to the House the premise upon which my vote opposing this bill is based.