Otago Chamber of Commerce chief executive Dougal McGowan was scheduled to speak during a public forum before councillors debate and vote on the policy at a council meeting next week.
But he has been told he is no longer allowed, as meeting chairman Mayor Dave Cull is not allowing any presentations on the issue, for or against, before the vote.
In December, Unite Union organiser Sonja Mitchell was allowed to speak before councillors voted to adopt the current policy and she urged them to think about the number of workers who would miss out on the Easter break, and the families who would also miss out.
Mr McGowan, whose time for speaking is included in the meeting's agenda, said not allowing him to speak was a double standard.
"You can't allow one group to have their say then take that right away next time it is supposed to be a public forum where members of the public can come and speak on whatever they wish," he said.
He was going to use the time to provide councillors with additional information which he said was not included in the report from a hearings committee.
For such an important issue for the city it was vital councillors had all the facts in front of them before they made a decision.
The committee has backed the reinstatement of Easter Sunday trading restrictions.
Mr Cull did not respond to a request for comment but in a statement a council spokesman said no-one was being permitted to speak for or against the recommendation before the debate.
Under standing orders, the chairman had the discretion to decline to hear a speaker or to terminate a presentation at any time where the matter was the subject of a hearing, the spokesman said.
The chamber of commerce had already presented its view to the hearings committee and giving further speaking rights to any party could give unfair advantage.
Presenting new information without councillors having the opportunity to test it could potentially compromise the integrity of the process and delay the possibility of a decision.
The process must have a clear conclusion, the spokesman said.
Related Stories
Comments
The law originally would have been to protect the religious beliefs of employees who had employers who did not share the religious beliefs. To the believers it is a holy day(s) but to unbelievers it is time wasting.