Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill

I move, That the House take note of the report of the Commerce Committee on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill. We are currently in the forty-seventh Parliament of New Zealand. This bill first came before the House in the forty-fifth Parliament.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Last century!

Yes, last century, which, in parliamentary terms, is a very long time ago. It was introduced by our colleague Mrs Patricia Schnauer, and it has had a long and winding history through the House. In fact, it will be the only bill ever passed in the history of the New Zealand Parliament that will have two Committee stages in this House. That is quite extraordinary, given the modest change it makes to our shop-trading hours.

Before I go too far, I would like to acknowledge Mr Mark Peck. I hope I will not do much damage to his career in the Labour Party. Without exception, Mr Mark Peck is the finest chairperson I have ever served under in the select committee process. He has done a fine job generally in the Commerce Committee, and on this bill in particular.

We have a bill that will allow retailers to decide for themselves, according to their customers’ wishes, whether they open on Easter Sunday. That move is long overdue in New Zealand. What we have is arbitrary and does not make sense. It is subject to a lot of politicking, and to a lot of very unfortunate policing activity by Department of Labour officials, I guess, going around snooping to see who might be buying a potplant—not the type the Greens go for, because those are traded on Easter Sunday, but a real potplant from the garden centre on an Easter Sunday. Everyone in New Zealand thinks it is a bit silly.

I would have liked this bill to go a lot further and leave every day in New Zealand up to customers and to the shop owners who have their capital and livelihoods at risk. However, it is fair to say that the best that we could do in our committee was to get Easter Sunday and leave it up to this Parliament to decide. I support that as a step in the right direction.

In 2003 the Minister of Labour, Margaret Wilson, called on a working-group to look into shop-trading hours. The group released its report in June 2003 called Shop Trading Hours—Proposals for a Way Forward. It contained two options and states: “The two options proposed are founded on our assessment that Easter Sunday is the main focus for any change, and on the need to balance the social, community, commercial and employee interests involved.”

The committee supported the proposal of the working-group and agreed to focus on Easter Sunday trading. I have to say that it was not easy for the committee, but it agreed and recommended an amendment to allow Easter Sunday trading across the board. The reason for that is that most of the current area exemptions relate to Easter Sunday trading, and if we just removed that restriction, we would alleviate most of the concerns about the differences between the areas. We tipped our hat to the Labour Party domination of the Commerce Committee and put protections in for employees and leaseholders so that they are suitably—in the Labour Party sense of the word—protected against compulsorily working or opening on Easter Sunday.

I hope that Parliament will support this bill. It is a fair bill in terms of the interests that are reflected around this Parliament. What we have now is a law that is a bit of an ass, looks a bit silly each Easter, causes a lot of concern amongst retailers between one area and another, and in an important way undermines the institution of Parliament. Quite frankly, we have a law that is silly in this day and age. Paying civil servants double time to muck around on Easter Sunday taking notes and snooping to see who might have his or her shop open is not a very good idea. It does not reflect well on this Parliament.

I should say that I do not think that anyone in this Parliament wants to dismiss or downgrade anyone’s religious views. We live in a society that is not overwhelmingly Christian, but reflects a whole diversity of religious beliefs, different cultures, and different creeds. The important thing about that is not to legislate one religion over another, or one view over another, but to allow people the freedom to practice their religious beliefs. If people do not want to go shopping on a Saturday, they do not have to go shopping on a Saturday. They do not have to open their shops on a Saturday.

I see my friend Mr Tim Barnett here. When his bill goes through, people will not even have to have a gay civil union. It will be up to the people concerned to choose how they live their lives and whom they partner with. We are not talking about making it compulsory that people open their shops on Easter Sunday. It is up to owners and whether their customers want it. Is that not the sort of New Zealand we want—a New Zealand that respects people’s religious beliefs, how they choose to live their lives, and allows them the freedom to choose?

I commend this bill to the House. I thank my colleague Mr Mark Peck for his hard work, and his very good ability at managing complex and conflicting views on a piece of legislation. As a chairman, he is in many ways a model parliamentarian.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Much underrated by his party.

He is much underrated by this Parliament generally. Would it not be nice thing for our retailers if Parliament were of a mind to make the change before this Easter? How silly it would be to have Parliament supporting this bill but not getting it passed before Easter—having the absurd situation of changing the law after Easter, and again having Department of Labour officials running around fining retailers who open, because we have not done the business and got this bill passed. If there is enthusiasm in this Parliament to support this bill, I ask the Government whether we can bring it forward. Can we put it into the urgency motion and give some sanity to our Easter shop-trading hours? Again I thank members of Parliament for their support.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague has raised a very important procedural matter that needs some response from the Government. He has pointed out that this bill could be passed before Easter. Because it is to allow shopping on Easter Sunday, the request was that the Government include it in the urgency motion next week. Could a Minister from across the Government side of the Chamber give us some indication of that, please?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member, but that is a matter for debate.

I thank Rodney Hide for his praise. I must say I was much happier to relieve his colleague of some refreshments earlier this week in another role, in particular. This has been an interesting bill. I want to deal for a moment with the New Zealand First minority view. It was raised at the Commerce Committee that New Zealand First would rather see these things dealt with by way of local community decision-making. I have some sympathy for that point of view, but I have to say that within this legislation it cannot be done. One of the reasons that this bill went back to the Commerce Committee was exactly that. On the last occasion it was debated in this House, a number of amendments were moved to bring precisely that state of affairs about. Because that was outside the scope of the bill, those particular amendments were out of order. The amendments that had been carried out to the bill had essentially rendered it a nonsense; hence the member withdrew it, and it went back to the select committee.

I also say that—

💬 Rodney Hide: You have a good memory!

Well, I remember the debate on this bill quite well, because it is one that I have an interest in, and it is more than just an academic interest, I suppose, having been a shop assistant myself in my earlier life.

💬 Rodney Hide: They say you were a very good one.

Well, I can cut cabbages—

💬 Brian Connell: You may go back to it!

I may well get the chance to go back to it, at some time in the future.

💬 Rodney Hide: I least you will not say “Don’t be negative.”

I thank the member for that. But I also congratulate the Commerce Committee because, during the whole currency of this bill, even from the time Patricia Schnauer first brought the bill into the House to the time that we now have this second report-back speech on the bill, there had never been submissions called for on the bill. There had never been a hearing of evidence as to what the community thought about the matter. I think it was a useful process that we went through of trying to clarify the issues in our minds as we put the legislation together. Furthermore, the Minister of Labour was asked to assist with some work on the bill, and to get a committee together to look at issues around shop trading hours, particularly as they affect Easter.

Two other issues that were important to the committee, as we looked at this bill, were the protection of employees and the rights of leaseholders. One of the things that is clear from this particular debate—and I tend to share Mr Hide’s view that people’s personal religious views are exactly that—is that there needs to be similar protection for those people who have a strong religious objection to working on the day and for those with a strong religious objection to opening on the day. Now let us just leave the issue of employees out of the argument for a moment, and look at the issue of people who have leases in particular shopping complexes. We see their leases require them to be open during certain periods of time when the complex is open. It is important to give not just the employees but also the person who runs the business the right to say no, as well. In putting this legislation together we were very keen, indeed, to ensure that the rights of workers to say no and not to be pressured into working, and the rights of leaseholders to say no, were protected. That, essentially, picked up on the options that the Minister of Labour was able to sort out through her particular working-party.

I want to thank the people who took part in that working-party, because it did require a number of people to step outside their comfort zones. The employers’ organisations had to step outside their normal comfort zones and their principled position that they were going to open at any time they liked, and if they wanted workers to work, they would work. Similarly, those who represented the union side of the issue had to look at what was a reasonable compromise along the way to progress this legislation, if it was to progress.

I now come to the process of the committee. We took a lot longer to hear evidence than we did in the consideration of the bill. The reason for that is, I think, if we had taken a straight vote at the committee, the bill would not have proceeded. That is my view. Essentially, at the end of it—and I see Russell Fairbrother, Darren Hughes, and Ross Robertson here in the House, and they were on the committee—on the Government side of the table there were strong views. I am sure that not many of those on the Labour side of the select committee will go through the Ayes lobby and vote for the bill to continue. I will do that. I will go through the Ayes lobby, because I think we need to have this debate.

I say that as a previous shop employee who took part in a strike back in the 1970s, to stop Saturday trading. I will never forget that. Wellington and Christchurch went on strike, and Auckland and Dunedin did not. I will never forget, as a young man in my first employment, realising the moment I lost pay and went home to take part in a strike on this issue that we had lost the issue. I will never forget how powerless I felt going home and saying to my wife—and we had just had our first child—that I would not have sufficient money to pay the rent at the end of the week. I went on strike for a principle, yet that particular principle was not shared by all my colleagues in the retail industry. I have never forgotten that. So one of the things that I do accept, when we are dealing with legislation of this ilk, is that it is complicated. It is bound up in emotions, and in a conflict of rights. There are not just the employers’ rights but the workers’ rights, and they are not just the rights of those who have religious views but also the rights of those who want to enjoy the day.

The issue that created this problem in the first place was the question of trading in tourist areas and of the gardening shops. Now the gardening shops have been tidied up. I see Steve Chadwick here. Retailers in her area are asking why they cannot open in Rotorua, when shops can open in Taupo. Hanmer Springs is also another case in point—that area had wanted to join in the petition initially. I could not understand particularly why Hanmer Springs wanted to be involved, but it does have a substantial trade during the holiday periods, including Easter. So in putting the bill together at the select committee, it took a considerable compromise from members to get it this far. Members were prepared to send the bill back to the committee for further discussion, and I thank them for that because it allows the House to have this debate. I agree with Mr Hide. I would like to see this bill finished one way or another before Easter, so that people know the rules. I think that the longer this particular issue hangs around, the worse it will be.

I do not accept the member’s contention that we should extend shop trading hours out further. I tested that issue with my own family at Christmas a couple of years ago. When I mentioned that this bill was around, my son, who was working in a bottle store at the time, said to me that I must be off my rocker if I thought workers wanted to have to work on Christmas Day. Workers do actually value their time off. He was telling me that he valued his time off. And my son made another point to me that I actually know as a union official: one can actually write in protections, but the boss can say to casual and part-time workers that if they have the day off, they will be having every other day off as well and should not bother coming back. Those are real concerns, and I do not want to make light of them. I know that until we address those matters, they will continue to hang around as issues.

I certainly hope that this bill will make whatever progress it does through the House, hopefully by this Easter if that is possible. If that is not possible, then I am sure that the debate around this bill will tidy the situation up one way or another for next Easter.

As Mr Hide has pointed out, the legislative path of this bill to the House has been rather arduous. I am pleased now that it has found its way here to the House this evening for serious consideration—after, I think, the 4 or 5 years that it has been in progress of being debated and formulated. It is clearly an emotional issue. It is one of those pieces of legislation where “You’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t.”

I thought it would be useful, and I take Mr Peck’s point really, to step the House through some of the machinations that members of the Commerce Committee went through in trying to arrive at a sensible recommendation. Throughout the select committee stage 34 written submissions were received, and broadly 50 percent of those submissions were in favour and 50 percent were opposed. Of those supporting deregulation the most frequently mentioned was the need to respond to local, commercial, and tourist demand, and address anomalies in the Act that allows some areas to trade and some areas not to trade. This, I believe, is a confusing point that needs some clarification. Submissions also referred to the employers’ right to open when they chose. Easter Sunday is not a public holiday and its significance is far greater for some members of the community than others. I think members of the House will agree that these are all very cogent arguments.

Those opposed to deregulation, on the other hand, all supported the retention of Easter Sunday as a restricted trading day. All favoured the restrictions for Christmas Day, Good Friday, and the morning of Anzac Day also. Those against deregulation most often cited religious reasons and time off with families, as to why they were opposed. Others simply felt that there were enough working days and that the commercial argument for another day just was not justified. I think members of the House will agree that these also are very cogent arguments.

Members of the select committee weighed these issues very carefully, and finally we reached a position of recommending Easter Sunday trading. I have to say that I personally found this decision a very difficult one to make. I admit that I always found Easter Sunday to be a special day of significance, in my case because it is a day to spend with family, but I also respect that for others it is a very significant religious day. But on balance I decided that Easter Sunday trading was something I should support, really because I believe that that is the only way we will make progress.

I also decided there were many anomalies in the existing bill and that businesses really deserve an even playing field. In making the recommendation I, and, I think, other members of the select committee, were influenced somewhat by the report entitled Shop Trading Hours: Proposals for a Way Forward. It contains options for Easter Sunday trading that I found compelling, especially the emphasis on the need for balanced social, community, commercial, and employee interests to be taken into consideration.

There also exists a widespread confusion amongst the public as to what shops are open and what shops are not, and I think this issue needs to be resolved. The public are very demanding, and no more demanding than when it comes to the supply of fresh food. Trading conditions mean that supermarkets in particular find the current legislation and current restrictions very difficult. They encounter great difficulty and suffer considerable cost from the imposition of having to close on Good Friday, reopen on Saturday, and close again on Easter Sunday. Our demand for fresh food and nothing less makes it difficult for supermarkets to meet our demands without having to throw out unsold produce at considerable cost. Purchasing produce on a Thursday and trying to retail it as fresh on a Monday just does not rub. So I was persuaded that we had to ease the passage of this legislation through the House for businesses like supermarkets and their ilk.

I have to say, though, to members of the House that I do draw the line at Christmas Day and Good Friday. I have conceded somewhat to allow progress to ease the passage of this bill on Easter Sunday trading, but I do foreshadow that I see that this is the end of the line and I will not be moved further.

Having recommended trading on Easter Sunday, the select committee moved to ensure that employees’ and shop owners’ and occupiers’ protections were in place. Mr Peck picked these up, and I think he was right to do so. This was something that I think the general public and workers will have a legitimate concern about. I want to make it clear that under this legislation employees do not have to work on Easter Sunday if they do not want to, and there will be no repercussions—absolutely no repercussions—but shop owners and occupiers may engage or employ another person to work in their place on that day only, or part thereof. I think that is a reasonable and sensible compromise.

The decision I have reached reflects, I believe, a fair balance between all the conflicting views that were received by the select committee. That the bill deregulates shop trading hours around Easter Sunday is clear, but in my view it protects Christmas Day and Good Friday and protects the interests of those who do not want to work or be involved in those days. So I urge members to consider this legislation with an open mind, and if they can do their own search, have a look at some of the submissions that were put to the select committee, and speak to select committee members, I think they will come to a conclusion whereby they, too, can support the passage of this legislation.

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.

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.

New Zealand First will support this bill. We will also support the idea of putting it through under urgency. If the bill is to be supported, it would be ridiculous to pass it after Easter. I shall examine for one moment what would happen if this bill were passed after Easter. Many of the shops in the area I come from, and where Steve Chadwick comes from, will open anyway. Those shop owners are sick and tired of this issue not having been addressed over the past 6 years or so. We are talking about Easter Sunday. Those shops will open anyway. Those retailers will challenge the law. I have no doubt about that, although I cannot speak from concrete knowledge. I do know they are absolutely sick to their back teeth of not being able to open on Easter Sunday.

It is particularly bad in Tauranga. Quite often a cruise ship comes in, the passengers get off, get on to a bus, and go to Taupo! They spend their money in Taupo and when they come back they ask why the shops do not open in Tauranga, and whether this is the same country. Retailers have expressed in very strong terms how daft is the way things operate at the moment. People can buy a plant and something else in a garden shop, but they cannot buy an everyday piece of equipment in any other shop. If this bill is not passed before Easter, we will have an even more ridiculous situation whereby any retailers who open will be fined, only to find that a few weeks later this legislation has been passed. That is stupid. We should have been addressing this issue years ago—not last year, but years ago.

💬 Rodney Hide: We have been.

I acknowledge Mr Hide’s comments. This side of the House has tried very, very hard. With due respect to that member, he wanted to liberalise things too much, and that has been to his detriment and to ours. If we had stuck to what New Zealand First wanted—just opening on Easter Sunday—I think we would have got there a lot quicker. If we had stuck to what the Rt Hon Winston Peters wanted, and New Zealand First supports, which is that the local community would make a decision on whether that area opened on Easter Sunday, we could have got there literally years ago.

I want to clarify the New Zealand First minority report, because I think it could have been written a little more clearly. We do not support the option of opening on Christmas Day or Anzac Day at the community’s wish. We only support the option of opening on Easter Sunday at the community’s wish. We should have made that clearer in the minority report.

Much has been made of people with religious views. I like to think that I am a person of Christian beliefs and principles. I have no objection to this bill, whatsoever, from the Easter Sunday point of view. I am encouraged in that view by the one-time local vicar of Mount Maunganui. He was the vicar of two churches, but he is no longer in the area. That is sad, but he has been replaced by very good people. He has moved on to other pastures. He came along with a group of business people. I believe he met with the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Certainly, he and his group of business colleagues met with myself and gave us a very, very good, workable view of why shops could easily be opened for retailing on Easter Sunday, but did not take a religious stance. In brief, he said: “If the shops were open, people would feel encouraged to go out. If they went out they would come to my church, with their families, and I would have more people in my two churches than I currently have, and that’s a good thing.” He was exceedingly positive about it.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Optimism defeating logic.

I know the member is an eternal pessimist, but he should come over here from time to time and get some positive vibes. He would have a much better outlook on life. I am a little bit worried about what the Christian socialist doctrine, which obviously he subscribes to, has done to him. Perhaps he should mix with New Zealand First people a little bit more frequently and he will get some positive vibes. We are firm believers in the people of this country. We believe that if local bodies had the choice they would make the right decision for their respective communities. That is where we are heading.

When this bill gets to the Committee stage we will move an amendment to reflect that view. Notwithstanding, even if that amendment is defeated, we will support this bill. I have to say that our first preference is that local communities should determine whether shops open in their area.

I want this bill to proceed and New Zealand First wants this bill to proceed at maximum speed. I do not know what we have to do to get it in the urgency motion, but I hope the Government is taking notice. I suggest that New Zealand First would support an extension of urgency to get this bill comprehensively addressed. Let us get the issue sorted, one way or the other, before Easter. It must make sense even to those people who oppose the bill. Either it is dead in the water, if that is what the member over there wants—I know he made his view clear—or we make sure it gets passed. But let us get law-abiding New Zealanders working together. They do not want this hanging over their heads.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Let’s have them together with their families.

That member over there should look at my family and I am absolutely proud of them. I would go to war for my family. I brought them up to be commercially minded and with a social conscience. That member should not lecture me on bringing up a family. They have turned out to be great citizens. All my children are adults and all of them make a positive contribution to this country. I am very, very conscious of the importance of the family group. To suggest that we are in breach of the family unit, because we want shops to open on Easter Sunday, is absolutely ludicrous. If we really are family minded, there are far more important things that we should be doing, or ensuring that are not occurring.

For the remainder of my contribution I shall touch on the voluntary aspects of the bill. Obviously, work for the shop owner is voluntary. I can tell members that shop owners in Tauranga and Mount Maunganui are feeling the pressure of losing business to Taupo. They get the pressure whether or not they are allowed to open. I compliment the Commerce Committee on inserting a clause that this is voluntary for the shop worker. I am conscious that Mr Paul Adams will pick me up on this, if I suggest they are the only workers but I am referring to the employed worker. The bill provides them with the ability to refuse to work on Easter Sunday if they do not want to, or cannot cope, or whatever.

This is a good bill. We support it, but we want it addressed before Easter this year. We want it included in the urgency motion, and if that is the only way we can do that, let us have it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, under Standing Order 106(2) in respect of misrepresentation. The previous speaker, whom I refrained from interrupting, imputed a motive to my interjection, in respect of families, that did not exist. My interjection was: “Let’s bring families together” in respect of Easter Sunday, and I wish to make clear that in no way was I offering a reflection on that member’s family, which, I am sure, is superb.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that.

The purpose of this bill is to abolish shop trading hour restrictions on Easter Sunday. I see no reason why it should stop there. It has not managed to even slow down. I remember, some years back, that an American arriving in New Zealand on a Saturday was reputed to have said that he found the place closed. He might have said that he found us sleeping in, gardening, watching our kids play sport, or relaxing with friends on the golf course, the rugby field, or the netball court. Many visitors arriving in New Zealand today after 20 years absence lament the fact that New Zealand now is not the way they remember it. We have lost something of our easy-going and laid-back manner.

Retailers justifying the change to 6-day shopping said they were responding to consumer demand. The reality was that Saturday shopping was not an immediate success. Indeed, it took some time and many advertising dollars to convince New Zealanders that they wanted to shop on Saturday. The change was driven by businesses, with little connection or commitment to local communities. Initially, small retailers resisted the change, but the chain stores persisted and slowly but surely the habit took on.

At the time I was a very small retailer, selling my handicrafts on a Friday afternoon and watching my daughters play netball on a Saturday morning. Those of us who were concerned that we would have little choice but to open on Saturday morning were told that there would be no compulsion, but eventually Friday shopping became a non-event. It was killed, and my children had to get used to playing their sport on a Saturday morning without their father watching.

Years later, folk who remembered my opposition to Saturday shopping would say: “See, Mike, you had nothing to worry about. The world hasn’t fallen apart.” I am not sure where they have been, because the world is a decidedly different place now. The world has changed. Shopping is now the preferred recreation for more New Zealanders, and while we have never had so much stuff, we have never had so little time to spend with the people we like or to enjoy the experience of living in this lovely country. We are also more violent and more neurotic, our families fall apart more frequently and more regularly, we spend more time at work, gamble more, take our own lives more often, and—while it may be unfair to blame all of that on Saturday shopping—it would be extremely short-sighted to ignore the impact of consumerism on the quality of our lives and on the destruction of our environment.

I have to concede that Saturday shopping has more elements of community and family than shopping at any other time of the week, but that does not alter the fact that we now have less time to be family or to unwind after a week’s work. I have trouble getting to harriers on a Saturday afternoon, and when I do, fewer of my friends have managed to make it. Even fewer stay around to socialise afterwards. It is more difficult to find someone to coach the children’s teams, or to turn up for the school working bees on a Saturday morning. While Saturday shopping is unlikely to be the day with which we would dispense, adding Easter Saturday feels like the coup de grâce to a society that is in need of life support, not putting out of its misery.

Is it not already too late? What difference will an extra day’s shopping make? Saying no would signal that at least we are aware of the problem, and out of our awareness might grow a willingness to show a genuine concern for family and community—an awareness that might extend, not to increasing shopping hours, but to clawing back a little of the family time that we have lost.

💬 Steve Chadwick: What about the gardening centres?

It is not only the gardening centres. It is the thin end of the wedge. They will all be open.

A recent news item declared that New Zealand is the third least-regulated country in the world. I am sure there are still New Zealanders who see that as high praise, despite 20 years of deregulation—a couple of decades demolishing a quality of life that was once the envy of the world.

All the Green MPs will be opposing this bill. We would urge all our colleagues in this place to think carefully about the kind of New Zealand we are trying to create, and then work out what we have to do to get there. The deregulation model has not made us wealthier, happier, or more contented. It has certainly not addressed our environmental concerns. We throw away 10 million kilograms into holes in the ground every day—much of it toxic, all of it valuable. We source our products from all over the world, with little thought about the possibility that we may be degrading other people’s environments or lives, and we do that through our shopping. We manage to do it very well on 6 days and we managed to do it quite well on 5 days. We will do extraordinarily well on 7 days.

Those who advocate for extended shopping hours do so on the grounds that the present limited restrictions curtail freedom of choice. I say, tell that to the small retailers who are working longer hours than ever before—frequently for smaller returns. If they want to stay in business, the only choice they have is to open on Saturday mornings. With additional Sunday opening opportunities, they will eventually succumb. Do they have the freedom to choose to watch their children play sport? Unlikely. Do they have the freedom to spend the morning in the garden? Not if they want to stay in business. Are the people who drove the retailing revolution the same individuals who serve in the shop? Unlikely. They have lackeys to do that for them. Do we not need the extra work? Not nearly as much as we need the time—and rather than providing extra work, extended shopping hours have simply contributed further to the casualisation of retail trade.

Far from providing choice, Saturday shopping has undermined the opportunity for many New Zealanders to do many other things that once characterised what it meant to be a New Zealander. I recall an interview that Kim Hill did with a researcher who had concluded that 25 percent of rural Australians were clinically depressed. When Kim Hill asked how that compared with urban New Zealanders, the researcher replied: “They are catching up.” So why are we such an unhappy lot? In spite of too many people having too little work, too many of us are just working too many hours—more hours per man, woman, and child than ever before. While homelessness and inadequate housing are very real problems, many of us have never had such large homes or so little time to spend in them.

It is, perhaps, unsurprising that a party that sees us merely as consumers and taxpayers is unaware of the many other, vastly more interesting and important elements that it takes to be a human being, most of which take time. It takes time to be a friend, it takes time to be a parent, and it takes time to make the first XV or to get to my harriers on a Saturday afternoon. There was a time when New Zealanders enjoyed 4 days off at Christmas, another 4 days off at New Year, and the really smart ones knocked off on the Friday before Christmas and stayed knocked off until some time around the middle of January. All that, and unemployment was virtually unheard of.

Looking for extra days on which to sell people more things—that they probably do not need and probably will not get a lot of pleasure out of—is so extraordinarily unimaginative. So what should we be doing? New Zealand First’s minority view has some appeal. It says that the power to make decisions should lie with local, rather than central government, and should be seen as a result of community action. To date, the decisions have been made by a tiny minority of business interests, ably supported by sympathetic Governments.

Has there been a community in recent history that has sat down and rationally decided how long its weekends ought to be; how many long weekends it would like to have; whether, perhaps, Sundays and Mondays should be holidays; and whether it has the right to make those decisions for itself. I would have thought that communities have at least as much right as business leaders or politicians in Auckland or Wellington. Although I would be deeply disappointed should they decide to open their stores on Easter Sunday, they would have the responsibility of taking measures to avoid, remedy, or mitigate the harmful consequences of their decision by compensating—not simply by adding another day off, but by adding another long weekend, perhaps. That would give time for communities to do the community thing and for families to spend time together doing other things than accumulating.

In the interests of community—and family and the environment—the Green members of Parliament will be opposing this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Before I call Paul Adams, United Future has two speakers with 5 minutes each. I will give the members a bell on 4 minutes.

The debate on this bill is being treated as a conscience issue by United Future MPs, mainly because we are a party that still has a conscience. Therefore, I will be coming from a different perspective than my comrade, Marc Alexander.

I understand that, due to the competitive nature of business today, nobody thinks that it should be fair for one business to have an unfair advantage over another, and I would tend to agree with that. However, I do need to challenge that thinking when it comes to living life in the city. Just because each section of land in a city has the ability to have a building built upon it, is that to say that we should let each section have a building built upon it? If that were the case, we would have no parks in a city. That is what we are dealing with here.

Most calendar years have 365 days. Currently, there are only 3½ days left that still have no restrictions on them. So, as I said, if every section in a city had a building on it, where would our parks be and where would life be in a city without parks? If we had no winter, the spring would not be so pleasant. If we did not sometimes taste of adversity, prosperity would not be so welcome. Yet this bill goes further towards making every day the same as the next, and I say that the calendar year with no special holidays is the same as a city with no parks.

I have learnt that I can work every day and make a living. However, what I give, especially to others, is what I have found makes a life. To give requires time. To my children, love was spelt TIME, and in this bill, we are trying to give more of that away to work. People do not need more time to work; they need more time to show love to others. Success, I have discovered, is not about having more; it is about what you are willing to give up in order to have what you really want. I personally am more than happy to give up 3½ days in the calendar year when I may not be able to operate my business in the way that people try to convince me is best for business, but rather put that time aside to put deposits in the memory banks of my children and grandchildren.

I am not anti-business, and I am not necessarily saying one day needs to be treated above another, although I do appreciate that Easter Sunday is a special day to the hundreds of thousands of Christians in New Zealand. But what I am challenging the House to do today is appreciate the importance and significance of a special day, and look at it in the same light as one does of our beautiful parks. Would members really enjoy a city without parks and, if not, would members really enjoy a calendar year without special holidays?

I believe time will prove that one is as important as the other, and therefore I will not be supporting this bill. There are two things to aim for in life: first, to get what you want, and second, to enjoy it—only the wisest of mankind achieves the second. In this journey called life, many regret that they did not put a time aside to smell the roses. Let us not take away another day—as we also did not take away the places that have been put aside to help us to enjoy the journey.

Family is just too important to keep destroying by trying to make every day the same as another. Let us help protect the remaining 3½ special days by saying no to this bill. If we have progressed so tremendously by making work such an idol in this country, why do we not look at the state of our families and decide that, as we need parks, we also need special days? Right now, there are only 3½ special days left in a calendar year of 365, and I do not think that is too much to keep.

I suspect that of all the debates we have here, particularly those concerning conscience issues, this one is destined to change the opinions of probably no one. The Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill is something I am bound to support, because the more the State tries to legislate against individual choices, the more I believe individuals will be denied the ability to exercise their choices. It is about the right of employers and rights of employees. The idiocy of the State to impose its ideas as to when businesses can or cannot be open, when it is not a shareholder, is not on the board, and does not have any pecuniary interest in those businesses, makes no sense whatsoever. To me, that is an absurdity. It is not even consistent. The police, for example, do not suddenly stop and down tools on certain days. Hospitals do not stop and close up. The hospitality industry, for the most part, does not shut up shop just because it happens to be day X, Y, or Z.

I have been both an employer and an employee, and I have worked on any public holiday that came my way—primarily as a matter of choice, to be honest. For many years when the duties were being handed out, I chose to work on the days that other people had off, specifically because I wanted to take time out with my family when I could enjoy the things that were open. I did not want to spend that time just sitting at home, with the family just looking at each other, if I chose not to. Primarily, I think, the point for me is that no person ought to impose his or her ideas or ethics on to another individual when it does not directly relate to or have an impact on that person.

One of the things I am reminded of is that, primarily, the argument here is not about religion; it is simply about the choice to be open. We cannot all down tools on any specific day. Let us look at Easter Sunday, for example. I see a church as being nothing more than a business that peddles its wares. It collects money and it sells a certain product, a certain theology that one can purchase. That is not a slight against any particular religion. As an employer, I was mindful of the fact that sometimes my employees used to come to me and say that certain days were important to them, whether for religious reasons or for personal reasons—their wife’s birthday, their birthday, or whatever it might be. As an employer, it seemed important to me to give them their due consideration and allow them that time off if it was at all possible, and in all cases, it ended up being possible. I see no inconsistency with being able to be reasonable and giving the time off on days that were important to the individual—not necessarily the days that the State mandates as being important to the country, but the days that are important to the individual.

One of the reasons I support this bill is that we need to allow employers and employees to have flexibility to decide for themselves what constitutes, for them, their special days. We all have special days, days that matter to us, but the State cannot possibly be in a position to mandate them; it comes from us. It seems illogical to me that anybody can foist his or her ideas on somebody else.

💬 Hon Member: Are you getting to the good bit?

I am getting to the good bit. I have spent a lot of time in business; I have had my own business. I have to say that in the hospitality industry the idea of not being open on days such as Christmas, Easter, New Year’s Day, and so on goes absolutely against the grain. Those are the most important days for that type of business. I understand that this bill will not actually affect the hospitality trade other than for restaurants out at vineyards, which will be able to provide the wine that is grown there. There are so many facets to our lives now that revolve around a 24-hour, 7-day week that we have individualised the time we have with our families and the time we have off to pursue our individual interests, and I think the State should butt out.

I have found this an interesting debate and I want to go back to some comments other speakers have made. In respect of the issue that this bill needs to be debated and passed by Easter Sunday—as though Parliament has not dealt with it ad nauseam for years and years; it has—sadly, for those people who have been proponents of it, they have not won enough votes for it to be carried, and that is why the law still offers 3½ days’ respite for those workers who work in an industry that requires staff to work on all the other days of the year.

It is interesting to look at the Standing Orders for this place, and I suggest that members who are not familiar with Standing Order 46 should go to page 28, where it states that there is to be no Sunday sitting at all, ever. This is not just Easter Sunday but every Sunday. I am looking forward to a time when the members opposite who say we must sit in urgency, start thinking about that Standing Order and about whether they would be in a desperate hurry to have it changed, so that members in this House would work even one Sunday a year in this place.

One of the other more interesting arguments, given the nature of debate in our society at the moment, particularly in the media, that there must be one law for all, is that the proponents of this change to the law say that it should happen because people are breaking the law and they have a right to break it. Those proponents champion their cause of breaking the law. Then they would have us believe that the committee’s work in offering some protection would be worth more than the paper it is written on. I am sorry but I just do not accept that. If these people are prepared to flout the law—and we are in a country that at the moment is saying there should be one law for all—then how am I to trust that those very same people who openly flout the law now would obey this piece of legislation and offer protection to their workforce?

As a union official, I represented workers in the hospitality and health industries for years—people who would have dearly loved to have off any public holiday as of right. They have not had that right for many years. They would absolutely cheer and clap if Parliament gave them that right, but it never will, because we have gone long past those times when we respected the rights of people to say no to work on a day that they find special—a day that might be a time just to spend with their families.

I thought it was interesting to listen to the speech made by Mike Ward, who reminisced, to a degree, about what family used to be in this country not so many years ago. In my time as a member of Parliament when my sons were still at school, there were very rare occasions when I went to watch them play cricket for the school on a Saturday and I was the only parent there. I was an MP at that time, and there were no other parents there. If we contrast that with the days when we were growing up, not that many years ago, we would recall how many parents would have been on the sideline of every sporting event that their children took part in. Why? Simply because they had the time and they did not have to be at work.

Have we taken stock of the consequences of that massive change in our society over the last 10, 15, or 20 years, and asked: “Is this enough?” I say that it is. It is a simple matter for me. It is not a matter of somebody else’s freedom to shop being more important than a worker’s freedom to be at home with his or her family on 3½ special days per year. It is enough. The line has been drawn, and I do not want to see it changed any further than it is now. I may be outvoted on that, but at least I will have had the chance to stand up for people who do not get a voice in the workplace. One need only have worked as a retail worker at any time in one’s life to know that the powerlessness of those people is at the extreme end of powerlessness in terms of their relationship with their employers—be they good or bad—because the competitive pressures in that industry are particularly severe. It is not easy for a largely young and female workforce to have power against, not the local mum-and-dad employer, as was the case when I was growing up, but the enormous multinationals.

Most of our shopping chains are not owned by citizens of this country, so workers do not deal face to face with their boss, who may be a nice bloke and be prepared to listen when they want the day off because it is their birthday. That is not the retail set-up in New Zealand any more. It is just romantic nonsense to believe that the power relationships are what they were 10, 15, or 20 years ago in most workplaces. It would not be sufficient to say that this legislation offers protection to those workers. I know from a great many retailers themselves that those days off are about the only respite many of them get from running their businesses—those that are still small-business owners. We hear a lot about championing the cause of small businesses, and I think that in rejecting this bill, we would be championing the cause of many small businesses, and those retailers would say: “The law says I don’t have to open, and thank goodness, because that gives me 3½ days off this year.” That can be a reality for many of them. Small-business people do not get any time off, other than 3½ days a year.

So the points others have made is not enough to convince me that this should be sufficient to allay our fears about those who wish to have the day off. They will get the pressure. They will feel the pressure in many and subtle ways, and find that it is better to give in and work. So I am utterly opposed to extending the line any further than the 3½ days we now have. I again ask people to think about this argument about freedom of choice, because there is just no contest. My right, my freedom to shop, is not equal to the right and the freedom of workers to spend some time with their kids, their partners, their grandparents, or their grandchildren. That is a far more important thing to stand up and defend than my right to go out at my convenience and buy something that I could easily have bought the day before and will still be in the shop tomorrow. It might be slightly less nice than it was on the Sunday if I have to buy it on the Monday, but the retail sector has worked out how to overcome these difficulties, and I congratulate the sector on that.

We are not talking about going back to the days when we did not have Saturday shopping or the ability to go to the supermarket at midnight. All those things are available in New Zealand. What we are talking about is a very valuable remnant of some sort of decency in this country when it comes to many, many thousands of workers. I repeat that members go into those shops and see who we are talking about. We are talking about a largely female and largely young work force, and it is their right, in my view, to hear Parliament offer some leadership and some guidance through the law and say: “Yes, we think it is our right as elected parliamentarians to use our judgment and offer some last vestige of protection for those people.” So I do not support this bill.

It was good to hear from some of the people on the committee. I refer, in particular, to one of the speeches—I think it was the third—made by Brian Connell. I thought it was a very good speech. We are on different sides of the argument on this one, but Mr Connell has obviously worked through the issues. He came down on one side of the argument, I came down on the other, but it was important for that select committee to do its work, and it is important for this House to have these debates from time to time. But I certainly think we need to take stock of the consequences of what has happened in New Zealand with all the liberalisation and deregulation that has gone on, and start to think about family values now, not just at election time when it is a slogan.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There appears to be some wording missing from New Zealand First’s minority report, and I am just wondering how we can resolve that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I cannot help the member. This matter should have been raised when the bill was reported back, which was a long, long time ago. The member cannot take that matter any further at this stage.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The bill came back to the House only a few days ago.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Time does fly, but it was some time ago.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the member feels some wording has been left out, he could seek the leave of the House to have the words included. If he wishes to seek leave, he could do so. He could test the House to see whether it is of a mind to change the wording.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): He may always seek leave. Any member may seek leave at any time.

I rise to support this bill. It is a tribute to a former ACT MP, Patricia Schnauer, who worked very hard and had great success in getting this to the House. The bill is not as she originally introduced it; it has come a long way since then. I am pleased that we will at least be getting Easter Sunday trading and removing the ridiculous exemptions for tourist areas. We often hear members—even members on the Government side of the House—proudly stand up and say that the whole of New Zealand is a tourist area now. It is simply archaic to have some areas designated as tourist areas, and some areas not.

I have been sitting listening to this debate and I have been astounded at what some people think constitutes compulsion. It is not compulsory to open one’s retail business just because other people do. One does not have to. Compulsion means that there is legislation making it mandatory, or that someone is holding a gun to one’s head. We heard the member from the Green Party saying that he was forced to open his little retail business and did not get to see his children playing sport. Opening the retail business was his choice. Nobody made him do it.

We have heard a lot of talk about family values and how Sunday trading—at Easter only—will lead to the breakdown of the family and the destruction of family life. I have several things to say about that, as a mother myself. Sometimes mothers actually like to get away from their families. Sometimes they like to go to work. Work is not a chore. Some people enjoy their work, whether it be working in a retail shop, waitressing, working in a bookshop, or whatever. They do not see it as demeaning, but as something they can take pride in, do well, and contribute to their family life by passing on certain values that go with turning up for work and holding down a responsible job. Those are mores and values that people should pass on to their children, not leave—as is the state now—to teachers and schools to try to instil those sorts of social values that make up a civil society. There are all sorts of aspects of family life, and it is up to families to choose for themselves what constitutes a good family life.

We have a situation in this country right now where parents are working at three jobs—not just one income, as they used to be able to live on, and not two, but three. Mothers are working, fathers are working, and they are both working to bring up their families full time. Why is that? They are working to support not just their families but somebody else’s family as well—because they are being taxed far too much. If they were on a flat tax they would have so much more of their own income to take home and spend how they liked. If they choose to support other families, then so be it. But the crucial issue in New Zealand at the moment is the tax on working families. That is why some members talk about being forced to go out and work. The only thing that is forcing them to go out and work is having to pay the high taxes that this Government has taken off them and used to build up a huge surplus. Why? Because it is ideologically opposed to people who earn $60,000 or more—they are considered rich. It is “all aboard the Labour Government gravy train”, and that is what is killing family life in this country—not Easter Sunday trading.

As someone who has huge respect for Christian values, I do not see that this legislation is an insult to those values at all. People will still be free to go to church on Easter Sunday if they want to. This bill does not bring trading in for Good Friday or Christmas Day. It is not denigrating Christian values at all. I see it as a boon for people who are on low incomes and who want to earn a bit more money, and for students who want to supplement their income. I support this bill.

I am thrilled to get an opportunity to speak on this bill, which I support. The debate began so sensibly and moderately, but I knew that it would deteriorate into an expression of some wildly diverse views, and that is a reflection of the nature of the broad church of this House.

After the second reading on the original bill that lapsed, and our decision to put pressure on setting up a working party, we decided to take the issue out of politicians’ hands because we could not reach consensus on it. It had been around for years and years and, yes, we could not get the numbers to pass the bill. I would like to thank that working party, which also reflected a very broad church. It had representation from the Council of Trade Unions, the Retailers Association, the tourism industry, and local government. I think that was a great reflection.

We are here tonight to consider the report that has come back from the Commerce Committee, which considered the recommendations of the working party report. That consideration arose after I sponsored a local bill for Rotorua on Easter shop trading. The report that has come back reflects the vote in the House the night we lost that local bill. People accepted there were some days they did not want to touch, and the one day that was acceptable was Easter Sunday—shops could open on Easter Sunday. This working party report we are considering tonight reflects how the vote went then. Could I remind members of the House that that vote was lost by four votes.

Rotorua, I have to say, was quite devastated after that, because Rotorua had gone out to its constituency and asked them what they wanted. They considered that the only day feasible for them to open, because Rotorua is a tourism icon, was Easter Sunday.

There are two options in this report, and one option is that the local authority can make the decision—which is what New Zealand First favours. I say, as an electorate MP for Rotorua, that that would go our way but after hearing the debate on the local bill, where everybody else came in—Napier, Queenstown, and other areas said they wanted to open, too—I am not prepared to see those anomalies come before the House again. That is why I support that, across New Zealand, there is the right to open on Easter Sunday—not to have workers coerced into having to turn up to work on Sunday but to give retailers the right to open. I think that is a sensible approach. We nearly got there on our local bill, but lost it by four votes.

I feel the mood of the House will not be changed by this debate tonight; we all have fairly fixed views on it. We respect the views of those who want to go to church. We respect values of families, and we respect the need for time with one’s family. But the world has changed, and I find it hypocritical, actually, that the Greens do not support this report. At the previous vote, the Greens came thundering into the House with an amendment to allow garden centres to open on Easter Sunday. Why on earth are they not supporting this bill that allows retailers to open on Easter Sunday? We have service stations open, we have dairies open, and we have garden centres open. We will have vineyards open, and we will have 24-hour health centres, with pharmacies attached, open.

The world is changing. It is closing in on those who do not want that isolated day to be tampered with. But I am afraid it is a different world, the genie is out of the bottle, and we need a sensible approach as politicians to manage the balance of days left to us to have open—those 3½ days. I want to have it put to the vote, and put through before Easter Sunday. We are tired of this legislation. I have debated it for 4 years, every Easter, and I will continue to do that until the tide in the House turns to support this vote.

I have heard the debate this evening, and I am very pleased to stand here and support this bill. But in doing so I must say I have respect for those members who speak contrary to this bill; they give balance to the argument. This bill is about choice.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.