Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill

I move, That the Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill be now read a second time. This bill was first introduced on 6 November 2002. At the time the House voted 91 to 26 to refer the bill to the Commerce Committee. I thank my colleagues on the Commerce Committee for delivering the report on this bill to the House and allowing debate today. I have never been pressured to withdraw the bill, as the Rt Hon Winston Peters mistakenly felt had happened.

The Rotorua District Council, on knowing last year that we were no longer having any success with the Easter shop trading bill, moved quickly to attempt to close a longstanding anomaly that arose from previous bills relating to Easter shop trading. The conscience vote in the House in support of Easter trading in 2002 was lost 70 to 47. Our community did not take that decision lying down. We had watched previous attempts to liberalise holiday trading fail, except for an exemption proposed by the Greens in 2001 that allowed garden centres to open. I cannot for the life of me see why that type of retail outlet is any different from mainstream retailers.

The timing of the debate today is very fortuitous, and I thank the House for allowing the debate to occur. It is only 1 month until Easter, and the Rotorua district has been waiting for 13 years to clear the position, allowing it to open for business on Easter Sunday. This Easter is a huge weekend for us, being the middle of a school holiday, and there being a Super 12 rugby game on Saturday in Rotorua, where the Chiefs are playing. As a community we need to know where we stand, and, hopefully, today the wisdom of the House will prevail for us and an ambiguity that irks our district will be cleared for once and for all.

As a district we have been poorly served since 1990. No previous member for Rotorua attempted to correct the schedule of exemptions attached to the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act in 1990. That was in spite of the fact that we had a previous Minister of Commerce as a local MP; perhaps there were simply bigger fish to fry. There are 20 other geographic areas that were granted an exemption to trade by the Shop Trading Hours Commission, under the Shop Trading Hours Act in 1977, on the grounds of their importance as tourism areas. We have a very silly situation whereby Queenstown and Taupo are able to open for business and we are not. We were simply left off the list. Whilst those exemptions were carried over under the transitional provisions of the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act in 1990, the mechanism for granting further exemptions was abolished. As a result, we were left out of the loop again.

As well as geographic exemptions, certain shops are entitled to trade; those shops providing food, drink, household and personal items, and automotive fuel and parts, of a kind that people may reasonably need to buy at any time, may sell them. That is now patently absurd in a modern day and age.

A Lincoln University study of Rotorua tourism shows that tourism accounts for $830 million annually in our local economy. We welcome over 1.4 million tourists per annum, and during Easter accommodation regularly outstrips supply. Tourism also provided one in six jobs in our district, and that means a lot to us.

I have advocated for change since I was a district councillor back in 1995, and I have been consistent in my stand to get this anomaly corrected. That has been perceived as an interesting philosophical stance for a Labour member, but I have no problem with it. My position is very clear as the electorate MP for a major tourist district. It is an extreme frustration that our visitor numbers are increasing every major holiday, and the town has simply no option but to close its doors to a substantial economic opportunity year after year.

The fines that our retailers brave if they choose to have their shops open during Easter are another factor that causes me some considerable concern. Every retailer who flouts the law is subject to a fine of $1,000. Last Easter there were 31 prosecutions nationally, and we do not need that added burden. That, and the accompanying despair of the legislative process that has failed us to date, have resulted in considerable tension. I do not support the approach of civil disobedience being proposed by a local leader of the retail sector this Easter. It is simply a reflection of the degree of frustration felt locally. It is on the grounds of working through an appropriate process that I am proud to sponsor this bill for the Rotorua district. This is a bill that the district council itself has written in response to the legislative lack of support in the past.

I want to explore the opportunities that have been open to us prior to this local bill. We attempted to develop a joint local bill with our neighbour Tauranga, but that is simply not legislatively possible. One cannot have a joint local bill. I then lobbied hard to get the numbers to support Rodney Hide’s bill. Any amendment that I proposed was not accepted and was seen to be outside the scope of that bill. I was aware of that, but what other option did I have but to attempt to work within the proposed framework. Cheap shots were fired from the Opposition that I was a lazy member, not doing my job for Rotorua. Well, that description does not sit easily with me or with the community that I know and respect. I then worked with the council to develop this bill, and also advised it that any attempt to include Easter Friday would probably not be accepted, given the vote in the House in 2002. With the support of the Ready to Retail sector and major local tourism leaders such as Tamaki Tours, Paradise Valley Springs, and Skyline Skyrides, I am proud to sponsor the local bill that is before us today.

This bill was successfully referred to the Commerce Committee, and the committee reported back to the House in February this year. The committee did not have a particular recommendation on the passage of this bill, but noted that it would be up to the conscience of the House to decide. Those in favour of the bill are local retailers. It is they whom this bill will benefit. It is time that we sat up and listened to the people who will be directly affected, rather than turning a blind eye to them because of our anomalous set of current shop trading hours.

I stress that the bill does propose protections for workers who choose not to work on Easter Sunday. I remain satisfied that the provisions to cover the rights of workers that were agreed with the Green amendment in 2001 are carried over into this bill.

I tend to agree with some of the submitters that this bill is difficult to consider, given a parallel process that the Minister, Margaret Wilson, agreed to establish this year. That was after Rotorua did the work on this bill. There is a working-party established, and it will not be able to report back to the Minister by this Easter. It was only after the tabling of this very specific Rotorua bill that any other approach was considered, at my recommendation. I am pleased to have the Minister’s support.

I do not accept that we need more research and data in order to help us reach a decision. We have had surveys, census data, time-use data, and labour force data, and a local review in 2002 showed us that 56 percent of Rotorua wants Easter Sunday trading. I believe that if a community wants the right to trade, we should be able to proceed on those lines. I am determined to do everything I can to see Rotorua trading this Easter, and this local bill is our last resort. I urge my colleagues to give their support to this bill.

That member is another frustrated Labour member of Parliament. My heart goes out to her. I am glad the Hon Margaret Wilson is sitting in the House listening to her colleague pleading because the Minister has failed to deliver. She promised so many times to introduce to this House a sensible solution and reform of the outdated shop trading hours. Alongside John Tamihere, Steve Chadwick is another frustrated Labour member of Parliament.

It is a privilege for me to be the New Zealand National Party’s tourism spokesperson. In 1991 the National Government set up the New Zealand Tourism Board to support the tourism industry, and we witnessed continuing tourism growth until today. Yesterday Tourism New Zealand welcomed the news that international visitors spent an estimated NZ$6 billion in New Zealand for the year 2002. This figure demonstrates the importance of tourism to the New Zealand economy. It has been contributing an increasing amount to our country’s foreign exchange earnings.

More important, I would like to tell the public that 60 percent of total visitors in New Zealand are ourselves, Kiwis, enjoying a holiday in our own country. Annually now, throughout New Zealand, we receive over 2 million overseas visitors, and many more of our own people are visiting each other’s region. How many cities and regions in New Zealand will say nowadays they have nothing to do with tourism? Practically none.

I have difficulty with the member for Rotorua—even though she is well meaning—saying that Rotorua should be singled out for an exemption because it is a tourism centre. New Zealand as a whole is a destination for international visitors. We learn that the Commerce Committee heard from one of the submitters, Hanmer Springs—a fantastic little town in Canterbury—that it is also a vital part of the tourism industry. I agree, and it should be granted the same exemption. Therefore, it does not make sense for this House to endorse a piece of legislation that would allow retailers in a specific area to open on Easter Sunday on the ground that that area is a tourism centre. I would argue that New Zealand, as a whole, is a tourism destination.

Business and tourism operators in Rotorua should take issue with their member of Parliament, Steve Chadwick, and have her work harder to try to convince her Minister, the Hon Margaret Wilson, that it is about time for her to bring sensible legislation to this House, to allow business throughout New Zealand, and employers and employees, to choose whether they want to trade and work on Easter Sunday. This House cannot afford to pass this piecemeal legislation, and to return to the bad old days where politicians would even decide the price of bread, or where individuals could go to watch a movie—because movie theatres were allowed to be situated only on a certain corner in a certain street—or what import licences would be issued, and therefore what New Zealanders were allowed to buy. It led to favouritism, and it gave politicians the power. They did not trust the people to make those choices for themselves.

It would certainly create a lot of unnecessary workload for this House. I can just see politicians on all sides of the House lining up, telling their retailers and business people that they are going to champion a local bill for them to gain an exemption on the ground that they are a tourism centre. Indeed, we have learnt from the Commerce Committee report—even though it refrains from making a recommendation—that, in the committee’s point of view, this area of shop trading hours legislation is already full of confusion, and the legislation itself is outdated and in need of reform. The committee actually says—including, I presume, the member Steve Chadwick—that to pass this law is to add to “an already muddled area”. The Commerce Committee, even though it refrained from making a recommendation, has pointed out that the passage of this law would just add confusion to an already muddled area.

There is also now, we have been told, another working-party being set up to look into this issue. If we pass this legislation it will undermine the working-party. What is the point of the working-party carrying on its review? If this legislation is passed, we are simply inviting all members of Parliament to bring their local bill to this House. We should then invite the Minister to disband the working-party. Anyway, I cannot say, from past experience, that the working-party might yield any tangible results.

Apart from the above reasons, I would ask members on all sides to consider very carefully before they vote on this legislation. I invite them to reject this legislation. Only by rejecting this legislation can we put pressure on the Minister to bring in sensible changes to the shop trading hours that will enable businesses, employers and employees, to make their own choices.

I want to comment on, and protest about, the process of this legislation and other pieces of legislation relating to shop trading hours. In 1998 the ACT party had a member’s bill proposing drastic reform to the shop trading hours. That bill was referred to the Justice and Law Reform Committee in 1998. Over 100 submitters made written submissions. In 1999 when Labour came into power, the bill was referred to the Commerce Committee, and Labour members on that committee refused to hear submissions or to receive submitters. Over 100 submitters were not allowed the opportunity to comment on the shop trading hours reform bill. That bill was discharged in the House, and was referred back to the select committee, because the Greens had decided that garden centres should receive special dispensation from the bill. Since then, shop trading hours remain an issue that is not resolved, despite the numerous promises made by the Minister that she was about to bring legislation into the House that would enable members to debate the issues properly and logically.

Once again, I tell all members of the House that this legislation is a very bad example of our returning to the bad old days, when politicians would bring piecemeal legislation to Parliament that would congest the workload but not achieve a lot during the process. I firmly believe that all businesses, employers and employees, in New Zealand should have the freedom to decide whether they trade on Easter Sunday.

New Zealand First has had a bill in respect of Easter trading in the members’ ballot system for years now, and by some quirk of fate we have not had it selected. So this matter today is very serious for this party. I say that, because the effect of our bill is to give local bodies—not central government—the power to make a decision, alongside their ratepayers and their electors, as to whether, for example, Sunday trading at Easter is what they want in the local area. In short, the effect is to divest power from central government, and to give it to local government, which is best able to decide what is appropriate for that area.

I am appalled to find that this legislation is before the House today, not because I begrudge Rotorua obtaining this legislation, but because Tauranga and Mount Maunganui are a far bigger area than Rotorua. The Tauranga and Mount Maunganui area is about three times the size of Tauranga, and it will not be long before we are passing Hamilton. A liner goes there very frequently, and 1,800-plus come off the liner on a Sunday and cannot shop at Mount Maunganui.

💬 Rodney Hide: Is Margaret Wilson going to fix it?

Margaret Wilson promised the people there she would fix it. This is the Margaret Wilson, of course, who puts out reports under the headline “Margaret Wilson, MP for Tauranga”. This is Margaret Wilson’s report, and she calls herself the MP for Tauranga. It is totally false. For 4 years or longer, she has promised the people of Tauranga she would do something about this. Here we are now—

💬 Hon Margaret Wilson: You can.

No, I cannot. It is a member’s bill. It has to be drawn from the ballot. The bill has to be drawn from the ballot. That member knows full well that I cannot amend Steve Chadwick’s bill. I cannot add Tauranga to it.

💬 Hon Margaret Wilson: You can do what she does.

OK, then, here is what I move, and Margaret Wilson can give me the answer. I seek to move by way of leave the following: That the report of the Commerce Committee on the Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill be supported in its entirety, and the following provisions pertaining to Easter Sunday trading within the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 be added for the benefit of all New Zealand. All that says is that this matter will be decided by the local body. I seek to table that. Before I finish I will ask members whether they are prepared to support it, so that the Tauranga District Council can, in concert with its own people and its own businesses, decide whether we will have shopping on Easter Sunday. If other local bodies wish to do the same, it will be decided by those local bodies.

Can there be any member in this House opposed to the fairness of that? I do not say that we have the say; I say give the local bodies the say. I have been challenged by Margaret Wilson to do something about it, and I just have. Let us not see this Labour Party, or any of its so-called allies—[Interruption] Do not back off now! The Attorney-General—this “MP for Tauranga”—said I should do something. I have tried every which way. In fact, just 2 years ago—[Interruption]—the member should not get into a lather—Margaret Wilson came along with an amendment to the shop trading hours. Margaret Wilson came along to Parliament with a bill and said—

💬 David Benson-Pope: If it involves work, Winston won’t do it. Too much like hard work.

Look, solar dome, keep quiet—the member might learn something. There is that arrogant whip over there. He beats his gums every day. He is a useless member for Dunedin. He is absolutely hopeless. He will never go further than he is now. He has no chance. It is just a sinecure for an old guy.

💬 Rodney Hide: He’s an old man in a hurry.

He is an old man in a hurry.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Come back to the bill. You have had your interjection and reply.

He can keep quiet when I am talking. I was saying that Margaret Wilson came to the House with a bill to extend Easter trading. Do members remember? What did she do? She gave it to garden centres or nurseries. We sought to amend that, and she voted it down. That is a fact. It is in Hansard. It is no use the Minister shaking her head. The Minister and her colleagues voted that bill down. The Council of Trade Unions got to them. That is what happened.

I am reading about this bill, introduced by her colleague, that the view of the committee, dominated as it is by the Government, was: “We do not consider it to be advantageous to contribute to an already muddled area by recommending to pass a bill that provides a limited exception,”. Limited! It is just Rotorua, and that is it. It is not fair and it is not right. How can anyone support Rotorua and not support Tauranga’s case? I do not argue for Tauranga and Mount Maunganui alone. I am saying let our local bodies decide. Let local government decide in consultation with its businesses and ratepayers. Who can be opposed to that?

We will find out today just how sincere the Attorney-General is. She puts out a four-page report—Margaret Wilson MP Reports. “Promoting Tauranga” is the first heading.

💬 Steve Chadwick: A busy Minister.

That is New Zealand’s best-kept secret. The report states “Growing the Economy”, but, apparently, not for Tauranga or Mount Maunganui. Here is another heading: “Keeping our Word”. She promised to do something about it. [Interruption] It is no use saying “Winston this” and “Winston that.” Winston won by 11,000 votes.

💬 Steve Chadwick: That’s right.

I know it is right. We had a bit of a blip in 1999, but, by Jeez, it has changed already. Here is another heading: “Margaret Out and About”. She will be out and not about if she will not support this legislation. I seek to move by way of leave the following: That the report of the Commerce Committee on the Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill be supported in its entirety, and the following provisions pertaining to Easter Sunday trading within the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act be added for the benefit of all New Zealand. All that my bill states is that we should let the decision in respect of trading at Easter be made by local government.

We are going to support the MP for Rotorua’s bill. How can we oppose it? But I am asking that member how she can, in all conscience, expect this House to have any sense of credibility when her colleague did her utmost to stop Tauranga and Mount Maunganui—

💬 Steve Chadwick: I tried to get you in on it.

I know. I thank Steve Chadwick for that. But all I am asking is how she can be happy with her colleagues who are saying that in the case of Rotorua it is justified, in the case of Rotorua we will ignore the Council of Trade Unions, in the case of Rotorua we will ignore everything else, but in the case of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui—one of New Zealand’s, if not New Zealand’s, fastest-growing provincial—

💬 Rodney Hide: A great place.

It is a great place, and it is going places, except it is being hamstrung by this Parliament and by a list member who promised the heavens and has delivered nothing whatsoever.

I seek leave to introduce the bill that I have referred to in this debate.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, and I will be calling the Hon Margaret Wilson next, I want to say that I have examined this matter, and it is right outside the scope of the local bill. If it was a member’s bill, then, of course, the member could seek leave. But this is a bill that has been to a select committee, it has had a report, and it has been referred back to the House. I shall have a further look at it. I assure the member that I will do that. But my first glance and my first discussion indicates that it is not possible to seek leave in that way.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect what you have said. But this House is the master of its own destiny.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is right.

This House can accept this bill today, despite what you have said. It can ensure that the people of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui, if that is the council decision, can have Easter trading this Easter Sunday. This House can decide that. None of us are hamstrung or confined by any parameters in respect of what I have suggested. Obviously, I have discussed it with my colleagues, and that is what I am seeking leave from the House to do. I think it is patently absurd and unfair that Rotorua, our neighbour, should get it, and we do not.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will not rule on it at the moment, but I will look at it in the next few minutes.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for looking into the matter. I would also ask that you consult the Attorney-General, because we all heard her very clearly say that it could be done—that the motion could be moved.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. That is a debating matter.

I speak in support of the bill. I also support your relooking at the ruling, Mr Speaker, because as my colleague Steve Chadwick said, we did seek advice from the Clerk to see whether we could extend her bill to include the Tauranga - Mount Maunganui area. The advice we were given was that it was outside the scope of the bill, which is your initial ruling here. But I would very much appreciate if it could be looked at again.

The reason I rise to support the bill is simply that it is unfair that Rotorua was inadvertently excluded from those cities that were exempted when the legislation originally went through. It has been my primary motivation for also promoting Mount Maunganui and Tauranga, which suffered the same fate. Those two areas were in fact in the original legislation. For some reason someone was not keeping an eye on the ball last time, and that meant that they were excluded. That has been grossly unfair to small-business people, particularly in Mount Maunganui, who have had to endure this for a long period of time. It seemed to me that very little was done right through the 1990s. It happened in 1990, and nothing was done to address it. I have tried several times, but as we know, this is a conscience issue, and we are bound by the consciences of this House. I have consistently voted for Easter Sunday trading. I do not agree with trading on Christmas Day or Good Friday, and I have made that quite clear. I recently met retailers in Mount Maunganui to discuss this issue. The question was raised with me as to why the local member for Tauranga did not do the same thing as the local member for Rotorua, and promote the bill that would in fact have allowed this to happen now. That is a simple point—it can be done.

I support the New Zealand First member’s bill that is in the ballot, but one does not have to rely on the ballot when one is the local member. I do. If I were the local member, then there would be a bill in this House for us to determine. That is a fact. I would have followed the example of my colleague Steve Chadwick, instead of waiting for decades, as Winston Peters has, to get around to doing something. He has the privilege to represent those people, and what does he do? He says: “Hello, I’m going to wait for a ballot. I’m not going to take responsibility as a local member, and promote a bill, because some people may not vote for me as they may not like it.” That is the real reason. I suggest that the member goes to Mount Maunganui, has a talk to the retailers, and explains to them that I have been trying to keep the issue alive for them while the local member gets around to doing his job. As I said, we are having a working-group. I am asking the working-group to meet those retailers in Mount Maunganui, preferably on Easter Sunday—when they will find that nothing is open, and they will not be able to get a drink, a cup of coffee, or anything to eat—so they can explain the circumstances they are in. Those businesses are not big businesses; they are people whose livelihood is dependent on taking that opportunity when other New Zealanders come into their town to enjoy that break. I have been very respectful of the fact that there have been religious objections to opening shops at that time. Personally I can understand that, as far as Christmas Day and Good Friday are concerned. However, my feeling is that because a lot of activities take place on Easter Sunday, and because that religious festival is one of celebration, I am therefore prepared to support opening on that day.

The opening provisions that we have put forward do not require people to open. Most of the shops that we are talking about, certainly in the Mount Maunganui area, are owner-operated, or they have family who come in and assist. Why should they be denied the opportunity to earn a living, and why should the visitors who come into our beautiful city be denied the opportunity to have a cup of coffee, lunch, or dinner in that town? I support this measure. It is unfair that those areas that once could do this activity were excluded from doing it for no good reason at all, except that it was an oversight. It is, I think, an outrage that we are nearly 13 years on since that happened, and that no one has really been able to find a solution to help those people in Rotorua and the Mount—except for my colleague Steve Chadwick. She has had the courage to listen to her community, and she has put forward a bill, which is the prerogative of the person who has the privilege to represent the people in their electorate. I support the bill.

The current shop trading regime was established by the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act, which removed the restrictions on trading on Sundays, public holidays, and between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. generally. The Act was originally intended to repeal all restrictions, but the current remaining restrictions, Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and before 1 p.m. on Anzac Day, were later added by a Supplementary Order Paper and passed on a conscience vote. The decision to retain some restrictions required the retention of a system of exemptions. One type of exemption was area exemptions for tourist shopping. However, only tourist exemptions already in existence at that time were retained, and Rotorua was not included as an existing tourist area.

The purpose of this bill is to allow shops in the Rotorua district to open on Easter Sunday during the period from 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. I note that the Commerce Committee has not reached a conclusion but has noted that shop trading has traditionally been dealt with on a conscience basis. A working-party has been set up to fully review the law relating to shop trading, and it considers that the sensible approach would be to wait for that work to be completed. I note from a letter to all MPs from the National Distribution Union that it also supports this view, as does the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, and the New Zealand Retailers Association.

Arguments for supporting the bill include the need to respond to local commercial and tourist demands, and the need to address some of the anomalies in the Act and enable some areas to trade over Easter. Arguments against include religious grounds—Easter is one of the most significant days on the Christian calendar—the need for retail employees to have some guaranteed days off for family and recreational reasons, and indeed the need to just stop and take a breath in a very fast and frantic world. I think there is a huge unseen cost in human terms of having a workforce that is expected to work 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. I believe that all those issues need to be taken into consideration as part of a wider review of the Act. Therefore I encourage members to vote against this bill and wait for the completion of the working-party review, so that we can review our shop trading legislation fully rather than doing it city by city, as with this bill.

I have to say that I was astonished at the Attorney-General’s speech to this House. The Attorney-General of New Zealand has been unable to deliver on a simple promise; a simple promise to have shops open in Tauranga and Mount Maunganui. Here is an Attorney-General who puts out a pamphlet that declares her to be “Margaret Wilson, MP for Tauranga”. Well, I do not know how to break it to the Labour Party’s Attorney-General, but the good people of Tauranga have spoken. They have spoken consistently at the polls, and Margaret Wilson ain’t the member for Tauranga! She never will be, because she cannot do the business. There is a word for a person who says he or she is the member for Tauranga when that is not true, and the idea that an Attorney-General would make that statement is truly shocking.

I rise to support this bill on behalf of the ACT party, but I am very disappointed that it is only for Rotorua. Why is Parliament having to decide who can open what shop, and where, when my bill would allow that for everyone? The Rt Hon Winston Peters would leave that decision up to the local councils. I see that Margaret Wilson was able to spend her 10 minutes explaining why she could not deliver for the people of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui, and that is what I will comment on. Margaret Wilson, the MP for Tauranga, said this in her newsletter to the people of Tauranga: “I have constantly strived over the past 3 years to ensure that the needs of Tauranga are heard and understood at the highest level of Government.” That says it all, because if she wants a bill for the people of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga, she does not have to rely on days on which private and local orders are debated, or on members’ days. Mr Peters has done it. He put a Supplementary Order Paper into the nursery bill in order to help the people of Tauranga, but how did Margaret Wilson vote? Did she vote for the people of Tauranga and Mount Maunganui on Winston Peters’ Supplementary Order Paper? I am reliably advised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Mr Ron Mark that Margaret Wilson, the “MP for Tauranga”, voted against it.

For 10 minutes we heard her explaining why she could not deliver, despite her best efforts and her election-year promises to the people of Tauranga. In 1999 she said: “Vote for Margaret Wilson, and shops will be open in Mount Maunganui on Easter Sunday.” I suppose the people of Tauranga did not keep their part of the bargain. I think she was still grumpy with them because they did not vote for her. I remember what she told them on the night of the election. She said that Tauranga is the redneck capital of New Zealand, and the Hon John Tamihere agrees. However, I disagree. Margaret Wilson, the Attorney-General, did get voted in on Labour’s list, and what has she done?

💬 Steve Chadwick: She did try to do a joint bill.

We heard from Steve Chadwick that the Attorney-General did try, but she failed. That is what has happened. We now understand that the Attorney-General tried hard, but she failed, and what comfort is that for the people of Tauranga? The Attorney-General parades herself as their local MP, and the best thing that can be said in her defence by Steve Chadwick is that she tried. The Attorney-General could put a bill up as a Government bill. She could take over Winston Peters’ bill as a Government bill, and deliver on it. We are going into urgency next week, and she could do it then for the people of Tauranga so that the bill would be in place by Easter. If this Government had any concern about Tauranga, that is what it would do.

Do members know what is going on here? No one in this Government wants Margaret Wilson to win the Tauranga seat. They realise it is not possible, because the people of Tauranga remember what Margaret Wilson told them on election night, and they will remember that she tried hard, but did not deliver.

We support this bill, and I thank Steve Chadwick for her comments on it. However, I ask the Parliament, who are we to be deciding which shop can be open, in which town or district? We should do one of two things: we should either leave the decision to the shop owners and the customers themselves, or, at the very least, follow Mr Peters and let the local bodies make the decision. Who are we in Parliament to be deciding this? How is it possible that Rotorua can have a special case over Hanmer, Tauranga, or parts of Auckland, or any other district? We do have an odd Government, do we not? It is saying that people can trade on Sunday, but they cannot smoke inside a shop any day of the week—even if the owner and the customers do not mind. People cannot smoke in a car-park or in Returned Services Association rooms, but they can pick up a prostitute 24/7. There is no ban on that.

I ask Steve Chadwick what the principle or philosophy underpinning this bill is. It is State-control over who can and cannot open a shop on Easter Sunday. What is wrong with the simple principle that it is the shop owner who should decide whether to open his or her shop for the use of customers? Are we not grown up enough to decide when we should and should not shop? Is that not a responsibility that the Labour Party is prepared to give to New Zealanders and to businesses? Will the Government decide when people can go shopping? With the greatest respect to the United Future Party, I say that not every one in New Zealand is a Christian. [Interruption] I do not know what Anzac Day has to do with Easter Sunday. I say to this Government that not every one is a Christian. If Muslims, non-Christians, or even Christians want to go down to the local hardware store and buy a shovel on Easter Sunday, why should they not be allowed to do that? Why should they not be allowed to go shopping, particularly when this Government apparently wants them to be able to smoke dope, and go to the local brothel to have some fun? Why can they not go to the local hardware shop and buy a shovel and do some work? Why is that not allowed? Why can they not do it in Tauranga? The Attorney-General, the self-styled “MP for Tauranga”, said: “I promise I will deliver this to you if you vote for me.”, but they did not, and she did not.

I am one of those old-fashioned people who like—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: This is a member’s bill, on which people will have a conscience vote, and I think they should be heard in relative silence.

I am one of those old-fashioned people who like commercial-free days, and there are not many left. I believe they help communities and families, but I am not sure that I am right. I think times have, maybe, moved on. I was on the Commerce Committee that heard the submissions on this bill, and I was one of those who heard a request from, amongst others, the Retail Merchants Association, which said we should not pass this bill, but that we should pass more general legislation that will apply the rule proposed here, throughout the country. It was hard for me, as a member of that select committee, to put it in context. One of the underlying issues is how significant a move is this? In a world where many other parts of our economy are already working on these days, maybe it is not very significant. That is one of the matters that the working-group will be able to advise us on. There are large numbers of nurses and policemen, and people in manufacturing industries, like those at Tiwai Point and other large places of employment, who already work on these days. Maybe the horse has already bolted. If it has, then I probably approve of wide-ranging legislation to reform the law for all areas.

A case in point in my own electorate is Wanaka, and, indeed, Queenstown. We have heard Queenstown mentioned previously, but it cannot actually trade on Easter Sunday at the moment, though, strangely, it can trade on Good Friday. In Wanaka, the population goes up by approximately 10 times its normal level for its biennial air show, when its population swells from less than 5,000 to more than 50,000 people, but the people in Wanaka cannot trade at that time. People in Wanaka say: “This is an important event for us economically. We should be able to trade.”, and I find that argument quite persuasive. None the less, I do want to have this put in context.

I was interested in an idea that I heard for the first time today from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He said we should perhaps be delegating this matter to local authorities, which is an interesting idea that I had not thought of before. Maybe the answer is to let different communities make the decision for themselves. On the whole, although I think there is a need for a review of the law, that review process is under way through the working-group that has been set up, and I do not think we should change the law in an ad hoc way, in the meantime.

I will be voting against the bill, to the disappointment of my colleague Steve Chadwick, who is supporting this so vigorously on behalf of her community.

Even though a conscience vote will be taken this afternoon, all nine Green Party MPs will be voting against the bill today. All of us support the position taken by some members of the Commerce Committee, that, although the law in this area is anomalous and in urgent need of review, this bill is not the way to deal with it. Like those committee members, the National Distribution Union, the Council of Trade Unions, and the New Zealand Retailers Association, we believe that the most sensible thing to do now is to allow the working-group that has been set up to address anomalies in shop trading law to get on with the job and complete its work. The point at which the working-group’s work is finished will be the time for new legislation—which we will look at again, of course. It is simply jumping the gun, and somewhat silly, to pass a law now that will only add to the inconsistencies and discrepancies inherent in the existing situation.

The current legislation on shop trading is inequitable, anomalous, and outdated. If this bill is passed, it will continue those inequities by extending an exemption from shop trading regulations on Easter Sunday to the Rotorua District. There is neither rhyme nor reason for the list of localities that have historically been allowed to open on Easter Sunday; and perpetuating the happenstance patchwork of exemptions is not the way to go. As well as the process issues involved, there are also the feelings of the affected workers, church people, and businesses to take into consideration. In March 2002 the National Distribution Union undertook a survey of non - food shop trading patterns on a particular Sunday—not, of course, on Easter Sunday—in Rotorua to see how many shops were open. Of the shops surveyed, 61 percent were closed and 39 percent were open, giving the lie to the contention that the majority of retailers in Rotorua actually want to be open all Easter.

An article in the Rotorua Review in the same period cites the representative of a local retailers group as saying that although some shops are quite keen to open on Easter Sunday, “others don’t want to, as they won’t open on Sunday anyway.” The same article goes on to cite a survey carried out by the Rotorua Chamber of Commerce, which showed only limited support for Easter Sunday trading. The executive officer of the chamber, Mark Watson, is quoted as saying that 44 percent of businesses that responded to the survey actually disagreed with the concept. Rotorua church leaders were also canvassed for their opinion, and all spoke of the need for workers to have time off, and for families to have time together, at times like Easter and Christmas. Of course, they also stressed the significance of those particular days being two of the most important festivals in the Christian calendar. Although many people in our society these days are not Christian, I think we should still respect those major days. But, above all, and beyond the feelings of Christian churches and local businesses, the Green Party believes that it is the voice of affected workers that must be heard in this debate.

The union that represents shop workers does not want this bill to go through. The broader union movement, as represented by the Council of Trade Unions, does not want this bill to go through. There are very few days left on which workers can count on being entitled to a day off, and Easter Sunday is one of them. I would hope that every Labour and pro-union member in this House would support the union call for greater work-life balance. The last 2 decades have stripped away many of the former protections that employed workers had. It is worth making a stand on the few that are left. All workers, including retail workers, must have some guaranteed days off so that they can spend time with their families, for recreational reasons, and, of course, for religious reasons, if they are that way inclined.

The Green Party continues to resist any further erosion of workers’ hours of work and statutory holidays, and patterns of work that are disrupting people’s ability to participate in family, social, sporting, religious, and cultural life. The Green Party will be voting against this bill. The matters it contains should be dealt with more properly by the shop trading hours working-group so that in the end we have workable, consistent law that will be supported by both retailers and unions, and not another haphazard piece of legislation that will only add to the manifest inconsistencies already so apparent in this area.

New Zealand First will be supporting the bill, as has been indicated by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. We want consistency for all of New Zealand in one piece of legislation. We do not want to see 120 or so bills for all the places around New Zealand that have the same type of tourist shopping facilities as Rotorua, as has been suggested by the Hon Margaret Wilson. We want to see everyone in New Zealand dealt with in the same way. If Margaret Wilson’s promise to the people of Tauranga in the 1999 election was sincere, she has had nearly 4 years as a Minister to put a bill into the House that would cover not merely Rotorua, Tauranga, and Mount Maunganui, but the whole of New Zealand, including the people of Wanaka, whom David Parker has mentioned. They could be covered, as well.

That is what New Zealand First is trying to achieve today. As has been indicated, we are trying to seek leave of the House for all New Zealanders to get the same benefit from the one bill, with no one getting a march on somebody else. We are not being small-minded with regard to this legislation. We have said we will support the exemption for Rotorua. New Zealand First wants to take a broad approach, and has no intention of kicking someone in the guts if we do not get our way. We are ready to support Rotorua; we merely say that support should go not just to Rotorua, Tauranga, and Mount Maunganui, but also to the people of Wanaka, and anybody else who might come within the frame.

It is quite extraordinary to have heard United Future and the Greens being on the same side in this debate. It is quite extraordinary to hear the Greens take the Christian viewpoint on this issue—the longer one is in the House the more one learns. It seems the Christian viewpoint of the Greens is the same as that of United Future, and maybe that is why they both support the Government from time to time.

We have made it very, very clear in this debate as to what we want to do. We have heard the Labour Party saying, from time to time, that it wants to empower local government. Is that not Labour’s standard phrase? We heard Government members saying, “Let’s empower local government”, time and time again throughout the debate on the local government legislation, and that is what we in New Zealand First want to do on this issue. We want to empower local government, so that it can make the decision as to whether the shops will open. I realise there will be a conscience vote on this bill, but I hope that all those members of the House who support the empowering of local government will not oppose the leave that has been sought by New Zealand First.

So far this year we have seen local government being empowered to do almost anything under the sun in terms of the local government legislation. For example, it has been suggested—absolutely wrongly and mischievously—by the Mayor of Waitakere City that we could have a civil airport at Whenuapai. That is the extent of the empowerment that has been suggested. We are not going anywhere near that in this legislation. As the Hon Margaret Wilson has suggested, this bill is merely about allowing people on this particular Sunday to go along to a tea shop in Mount Maunganui, Rotorua, Wanaka, or wherever, to have a cup of tea or, as the case might be, to buy an ice cream as they are going by.

I hope the request we have made will have the support of all members of this House. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has had terrible luck, or just bad luck, with his member’s bill. It has been in the ballot for years and years—it is amazing how these things crop up. Perhaps the solution is for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to take a little holiday and then the bill will come up, as was the case for Mr Peter Brown, whose bill came up in the ballot while he was away for a few days. I am not quite sure how one gets to win in a ballot on members’ bills. However, as far as New Zealand First is concerned, we want to make sure that all of New Zealand gets the same opportunity, which is why we make our plea to the House to support the proposal put forward by the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Jim Anderton, the leader of the Progressive party, has a saying that one should not die wondering, but he would not be against that happening in the case of some MPs here. He will vote against the Death in Dignity Bill, but I will vote for it, as I also believe that people should not have to die wondering.

In this case, so that my good friend Steve Chadwick knows, I will vote against this bill, and I will outline the reasons for that. First of all, I am one of those men whose wife takes him to hardware stores—and I break into a sweat when I go. I advocate that hardware stores should be closed more often, rather than opening on Sundays and Saturdays. My mother used to take me to the nurseries, and if they open more often that means more planting, more trees, and more work on my day off.

As well as that, I have a very old-fashioned concern for the workers of this country. As a result of the philosophies pushed by Mr Rodney Hide and those in his party, I have observed that more and more people are working in unprotected conditions, and that they are being forced to work longer and longer hours. That may be an old-fashioned concern, but I think it is one that is shared by a number of people, particularly those who would like to live as long as they possibly can. There is a gentleman whom Rodney Hide probably reads quite a lot of, whose name is Karl Marx. He advocated that workers should consider the theft of their time, because capital was very avaricious in that regard—the more it can eat up people’s time, and the less it pays for it, the happier it is. That is a thinker whom Rodney Hide should pay some regard to.

In addition, there is a slogan of the labour movement that states that we should have 8 hours’ work, 8 hours’ play, and 8 hours’ sleep. There are variations on that slogan, but the general principle is sound, and there is room within it to look at the changes that are occurring in our society. Let us look at them in terms of balance. First of all, let us look at the lack of balance between people’s working lives and their free time. It is out of balance at the moment, because it has tilted towards there being too many people working too many long hours at the expense of their health and their families. The other reason that I will vote against this bill is that I am not only old-fashioned, but an old-fashioned socialist. I believe it is important for us to look at our collective resources and to find ways to spend less time working, so that our health, family life, and community life are improved.

The National Distribution Union has written a letter to all members of Parliament, and it has some very cogent arguments as to how we can move forward on this issue in a rational way. The union wrote: “The National Distribution Union writes seeking your support to defer the bill to the Shop Trading Hours Working Group. This position was put to the select committee hearing on the 20th of February 2003 by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the Retail Merchants Associations. Simply, we believe it is sensible and efficient to utilise the agreed working-party process to develop workable, consistent law, rather than making law by exemption.” I believe the argument put forward by the union provides a sensible way forward. Once we look at it in detail, it will allow us to move forward in those areas where it is possible to extend shopping hours, but not in the ad hoc way that this bill proposes.

I understand that Steve Chadwick is looking at the economic needs of her area, and is therefore presenting this bill as a responsible member. However, this bill allows for the creep effect. In other words, Tauranga, Levin, or wherever else, will copy Rotorua, without our reviewing the law in Parliament in a way that will give proper protection to workers and to those communities that are pushed more and more into giving up time with regard to their own recreational and family needs. I hope we are sensible and look towards the solution that the National Distribution Union has put forward.

Before I put the question to members I will make a ruling on the point that Mr Peters raised. This is a local bill promoted by the Rotorua District Council. It is open to other district councils to promote their own legislation to deal with trading in their locality if they wish. It is open to the House to suspend its Standing Orders so as to turn this bill into a member’s bill dealing with a general law. But before it does that, the House should act very carefully.

This bill was confined to Rotorua when it went through the select committee process, which means that neither members nor the public have had an opportunity to consider the wider implications of Mr Peters’ suggestion. However, if the member insists—and I know that he will—on asking for leave to suspend the Standing Orders to convert this bill to a member’s bill of general application, that will be put to the House. As the member rightly points out, the House is master of its own destiny. In any case, Mr Peters’ proposal is not clear in its terms. The bill has not yet had its Committee stage, when the drafting details would be settled, but the member has asked for leave to do this. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.