Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill

, on behalf of Doug Woolerton (NZ First): I move, That the Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee, and that it be requested to report back to the House before Parliament rises at the end of the year. The reason for doing that is in order to give the bill the best possible chance of becoming enacted by Easter 2005.

This bill has as its primary thrust—and I want to make this clear—the shifting of responsibility from central government to local government, after consultation with their community, for determining if and when shops may open on Easter Sunday. That is the primary thrust. It is a fairly innocuous piece of legislation that simply devolves a bit of extra responsibility to the local communities.

Already a vast array of shops, almost everywhere in New Zealand, are able to open their doors on Easter Sunday. These include retailing in food, drinks, personal items, auto parts, fuel, duty-free goods, and those shops catering to the needs of the travelling public in passenger terminals, selling books, magazines, newspapers, and whatever. We already have trading on days such as Easter Sunday, but it is restricted and very limited in scope. Several communities throughout New Zealand have already been granted exemption to open shops on Easter Sunday. They have been given exemption from the existing shop trading hours provisions, and provide an excellent and worthwhile service, in particular to the thousands of international tourists, and local and domestic tourists, who gather in places as diverse as Queenstown, the Kapiti coast, Picton, if there is a cruise ship in port, Parnell in Auckland, Taupō, Paihia, and Nelson, to give but a few examples. Tourist patterns have changed, and a good number of other areas are equally deserving of this consideration. This bill simply provides for that to occur.

Over recent years New Zealand has become more tourist focused—and we have; we have to develop tourism in this country, and I do not think any member will disagree with that—especially so towards attracting international tourists, but the needs and wants of those travelling have not kept pace with the demands of the market’s customer base. In other words, we are not providing what the tourists basically want on this particular day. No longer do we see evidence of the practice we once saw, of our cities and towns looking like ghost towns on Easter Sunday. We now see bustling activity, and increasingly in places that are largely tourist-oriented, such as Tauranga. Tourists are out and about, seeking to enjoy their time and to purchase the things that tourists spend so much on whilst on holiday. In Tauranga, and in Rotorua—the city next door—shops are closed on Easter Sunday, despite market demand and despite people going to those places and wanting to shop, and those tourists move on to places such as Taupō.

This bill provides the opportunity for local communities to determine what is best for them, and how they wish to treat their visitors. This bill makes it incumbent upon local councils to seek the views of their community if they believe it is to be in anyone’s best interest to have shops open on Easter Sunday. This bill does not allow shops to open on Easter Sunday per se, it simply tells the local council that it has the opportunity to decide whether shops can open. It is totally voluntary. There is nothing forced, and nothing is imposed. This bill does not provide any automatic right for a shop owner to open; neither does it give the right to local councils to determine what is to occur with regard to the opening of shops on Easter Sunday.

The bill can be described as being permissive only. It does not prescribe anything at all other than a very democratic process at a community level for local shop owners to seek exemption from the current centrally imposed restrictions on being open on Easter Sunday. I heard in the previous debate the Greens talk about democracy, in terms of their Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill. This is democratic. This bill allows the local people to make the choice for themselves. It stops central government—anybody in this place—from imposing restrictions or imposing the ability for shops to open. It simply says: “Mr and Mrs Mayor, you and your council decide whether you want shops to open on Easter Sunday.” It does not seem right and proper to us in New Zealand First to allow that right in places such as Queenstown, Taupō, the Kapiti coast, and Picton when a cruise ship is in, yet prohibit that same right in places such as Tauranga and Rotorua.

I know there will be some counterarguments that say: “What about the workers?”, and all that sort of thing—

Hon David Benson-Pope: What about the workers?

PETER BROWN: I thank Mr Benson-Pope for that. I hoped he would have said that before now. Let me talk about the workers. This will be voluntary. Nobody will be compelled to work if they do not want to. This will be totally voluntary. I can tell members now, from my experiences in Tauranga, in particular, and I am certain the member for Rotorua will back this up, that there will be thousands of people who will want to work, of their own accord.

To deny this is to deny the local bodies in New Zealand the chance to make their own decisions—to do what is best for their communities. It is not our job to impose restrictions. Equally so, it is not our job to make it compulsory—“thou shalt be open”. Our job is to set laws that are fair and square throughout the whole of this land. I say to members, and I say it sincerely; if it is good enough for shops in Queenstown to open, why is it not good enough for Rotorua shops to open? If it is good enough for the Kapiti coast shops to open, why is it not good enough for Tauranga shops to open? This bill will not compel any shop owner, as I have said quite a few times now, to open if he or she desires not to. This simply gives shop owners the opportunity to open their shops during a long weekend and provide service to their customers and tourists.

Tourists come from far and wide now to visit this country because of our clean, green image, and I hasten to say, the friendly attitude that New Zealanders display towards people who come to this country. Tourists expect the shops to be open, to some reasonable degree. Gone are the days when I think it was a chap called Sir Clement Freud from Britain came here and said: “I visited New Zealand on Easter Sunday”—or some such day—“but it was closed.” Those days are over. We are now in the 21st century, and this bill, in a very small way, brings us further into this century. People expect the shops to open, tourists expect the shops to open, and international tourists, most certainly, expect to get some service from shops.

For tourists to arrive on a cruise ship at the port of Mount Maunganui and walk down the streets and see all the shops closed on Easter Sunday is rather naive. It is absolutely insulting to the people of Tauranga that tourists would have to get into a minibus or taxi and drive for 2 hours to Taupō to go shopping. How does that make sense? I have to be honest with members. I think that Tauranga shops would open, but this bill does not compel them to open. I urge members to think positively and at least send the bill to select committee where it can be more widely discussed and receive submissions.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): If the House would bear with me for a minute. Mr Brown, it is normal to set a date in the referral to send this bill to a committee. Your time frame was a bit uncertain. Would you prefer to put a date on it? I will allow you to do it in your right of reply. It needs a date, so we can have certainty.

I tell the member who preceded me that I will vote for the bill. I must say that his explanation of what is in the bill is not right. For instance, there is no protection for those workers who do not wish to work; neither is there any protection for those leaseholders who do not wish to open on the day to have the protection of not opening. The third thing I want to say to the member before I go on with the issues in the bill is that I do believe he has selected the wrong select committee. The Commerce Committee dealt with the previous shop trading hours legislation, and despite my assessment that the majority of the select committee were opposed to the legislation, reported back a bill that subsequently was defeated in the House at its second reading, but the committee reported it back with significant amendments that tidied up those particular matters.

I congratulate Doug Woolerton on the work that he has done in putting the bill together, because it is a debate that we need to have. I do know that New Zealand First was particularly keen on this matter, because it was raised by the New Zealand First member on the Commerce Committee at the time we dealt with the previous legislation. We were unable to include in that bill the possibility that if the House was unhappy with there being a blanket opening of shops on Easter Sunday, local authorities could have the say, simply because it was not within the scope of the bill to do so. Rodney Hide who was the sponsor of that particular bill knows the debate that we had in some detail. This is a perfect fall-back position to give the House an opportunity to have some further discussion and some say as to whether there should be trading on Easter Sunday.

Maybe I could highlight what I think is the anomaly, and it has been raised with me by the member for Rotorua on many occasions, and it is that Taupō shops can open on Easter Sunday and Rotorua shops cannot. If one is a shop owner in Rotorua and one wishes to open, then one misses out. That simply defies logic.

Rodney Hide: The member sounds more and more like a libertarian.

MARK PECK: The member cannot assume that I subscribe to that form of politics. However, I do accept the inevitable, that this particular issue will eventually get a positive hearing by the House. It may take some time. But one of the things I know, having been a shop assistant—and I happen to be one of the last shop assistants who went on strike to stop shops opening on a Saturday—is that when the tide is coming in, we cannot stop it. I visited a place on the south coast of England—a place called Botham, or something like that—where King Canute put the chair in the sand and said to the tide: “Come in no further.” Anybody who has been there will know that the tide rises about six metres there. Indeed, there is a road just above the beach, and when the tide really comes in it goes across the road, so poor old King Canute got a right royal dunking.

I know that on this particular issue people will eventually reach the stage where they will simply refuse to observe the law. If we as a Parliament allow that to happen, without building in the necessary protections for employees who do not want to work on the day, or for those people who run businesses who do not want to open on the day, who do not particularly worry about the competition, or have religious objection to opening on the day, then I think we do people a disservice. What will occur is that by custom and practice this will happen around the country. Then nobody will have a say as to whether they have any protections in those situations. It is much better that we deal with it.

I say to the member who preceded me in this particular debate that the Commerce Committee is the place to send this legislation, not only from the point of view that the Commerce Committee dealt with the previous shop trading hours legislation, but that it can deal with it quickly. I do not think that there is much of a need to have a round of submissions on this occasion. There has been a ministerial inquiry. There were copious submissions on the previous bill moved by Rodney Hide, and also on the issue of local authorities being able to have their own say on whether shops would open. We have the evidence in front of us that would allow the select committee to do a quick job on tidying up this legislation and getting it back to the House. If it is the member’s wish that this particular matter is dealt with in time to come into force before Easter 2005, then I suggest to him that the Commerce Committee is the logical committee to send this legislation to.

Having said all that, and having said I will vote for the bill, I also do not want to belittle the argument of those who are concerned about the thin end of the wedge. There are certain days within the calendar year that certainly are sacrosanct. One thing I can never see this House doing is agreeing to shops opening on Christmas Day. I can never see this House agreeing to shops opening on Anzac Day, the half day on which we remember our service personnel. Neither can I see the House making any significant progress if it does not honour the wishes of those who would seek not to work or not to open their shops on Easter Sunday. And that will be the attention. Many employers who will want to open on that day, will want to be able to say to their workers to come to work. I am sorry, but if those employers want the luxury of being able to open their shops, if the local authority decides it is useful for this to happen in their particular area, then they will have to accept some checks and balances as to what they can or cannot require employees to do.

I am sure that they will find the staff who will be prepared to work. I am sure that the vast majority of those employed in an enterprise will work. But that genuine opportunity not to work has to be offered to the employees, and protections need to be built around that. Some of us would say that some penalty rates should probably be built in, to make it a disincentive to employ workers other than the ones who are needed to work on the day to supply the services that tourists demand.

I hear the member chortling in the aisles opposite. This is probably the one point that he and I do not agree on. Having said that, it works as a reasonable disincentive and means that sufficient staff are there to do the work that is necessary to service the tourists, but also makes sure that those who are prepared to work on the day get adequately compensated. Those are all issues that I am sure the select committee can get its head around reasonably quickly.

The member, having moved his resolution, is in a bit of a dilemma. I know that the member cannot change his resolution once he has moved it. It may well take an amendment, or the leave of the House; I do not know. I found myself in this particular dilemma when I moved legislation recently. I moved that it be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It took quite a little bit of fancy footwork to work it out. I suggest to the member that if he is serious about progressing the legislation, and if he agrees with the point I have raised, he take some advice now as to how he can tidy up his resolution. I am certain that if there is a willingness to give this bill a first reading it would probably be in the House’s best interests to refer it to the Commerce Committee, which is not overly taxed with work at the moment. The Local Government and Environment Committee has a heck of a lot of business on its agenda just now. But it is not just that. The Commerce Committee has the expertise in the area and it is a committee that can consider the bill quickly, and probably do so without needing to go to any significant round of seeking submissions. I will certainly be voting for the bill. I know many of my colleagues will not be, but that is the nature of a personal vote. I look forward to the debate on this bill as it develops in the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will take both your advice and the advice of the honourable member. I remind the House that I have not moved a formal motion as yet, and when I do, in my right of reply, I advise members now—so that if they wish to refer to it as part of their contribution to the debate, they may do so—that I will be seeking the report back to the House to be on or before 16 December 2004. In the intervening time I will be giving consideration to Mr Peck’s suggestion of referring to the bill to the Commerce Committee. I will move the motion formally, as you suggested, Mr Assistant Speaker, in my right of reply.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is that the position Mr Brown is in? He can now move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Putting a date in the referral motion is quite acceptable but he will need to seek leave to change the committee, which I believe he will do in his second address.

I start by offering my support to some of the comments made by Mr Peck. I thought they were constructive, and I add my considered opinion that the bill would be better dealt with in the Commerce Committee, primarily because I think it is a committee that has its head around the issues and would move it through the select committee process expeditiously. I also add—because I am sure Mr Peck meant to—that the only reason the Commerce Committee does not have a lot of work on at the moment is because it puts through its work very quickly.

Rodney Hide: It’s got a good chairman.

BRIAN CONNELL: I understand it has one of the best chairmen in Parliament. It will be a pity to lose someone of that calibre.

I reluctantly support this bill. I want to explain why I say “reluctantly”. I have a great deal of sympathy with the position Mr Woolerton finds himself in, and I say to the House that we continually miss the opportunity to resolve this issue. As Mr Peck has already noted, just before Easter this year there was a bill before the House that sought Easter Sunday trading right across the country. I was a member of the select committee that considered it. I know Mr Hide was, and he made a significant contribution to it, as others did.

Rodney Hide: My bill!

BRIAN CONNELL: I am sorry, I cannot hear the member! I worked on that select committee, and I believe that it made a very considered recommendation to the House. It was a difficult position to arrive at. The submitters were divided roughly fifty-fifty against and for, but, on balance, I believe that the committee decided that the only way to progress this rather vexed situation was to ask the House to pass legislation that would allow Easter Sunday trading.

I pick up Mr Peck’s concerns here on the bill as it stands at the moment. The select committee I worked on, when Mr Hide’s bill was before it, put in place some safeguards for workers who did not want to work on Easter Sunday. The bill was very specific. It would have allowed employers to employ people on a part-time basis for that day only, and it was clear that those employees who did not wish to work would suffer no disadvantage whatsoever. That safeguard was built into the bill. Shoppers would have been able to exercise their own consciences by choosing either to shop or not to shop, and shop owners had the same ability—they could simply make a decision either to open their shops or not to open them. Unfortunately, that bill was rejected.

The bill we have now, I believe, has been born out of sheer frustration. There is a ridiculous situation across the country whereby some areas can have shops open and some cannot. It is a head-in-the-sand attitude. The reality is that the genie is out of the bottle. We will never stop Easter Sunday trading from happening across the country. It is a matter of time before everyone does it. A progressive Parliament would have got hold of the issue when it had the opportunity some months ago, and said that we should embrace Easter Sunday trading and put in place some quality legislation. We are now getting a reaction to that being rejected, and a reaction to some places across the country that can open shops and some that cannot. A couple of examples have been quoted, and I will repeat them: we have Taupō and Queenstown, which can open their shops, and places like Rotorua and Tauranga, which simply cannot. There is a patchwork approach to where shops can or cannot open, and that will send confusing signals, both to the people who live in this country and to the people who visit it. It will do our tourist trade an immense amount of harm.

We need to face up to the reality of what is coming down the tunnel. People now work on public holidays, when once upon a time that was a no-no. There are now shops that are open 24 hours a day and shops that open 7 days a week. The reality is that Easter Sunday trading will come, whether or not we like it. The situation is doing immense damage to our wine industry, because people come to this country specifically to go around some of those vineyards and to experience some of the things New Zealand has to offer, and we are not embracing it. I support this bill.

This House often speaks about the importance of families. It takes time to be a family and it takes time to be a parent. I was a retailer for many years. Occasionally I go and sit on my corner and sell jewellery still. I can recall when Saturday shopping was introduced, and I campaigned against it, as well. When the Americans came and decided that New Zealand was closed on Saturdays, they might have decided that, in fact, New Zealanders were doing other things. They were watching their kids play rugby. They were playing rugby. They were out in their gardens. They were enjoying a weekend. New Zealanders knew what to do with a weekend. They knew what to do with leisure. Yes, there were people who worked every day of the week, and worked nights. They worked those hours because there are jobs that have to be done 24 hours a day. People have to be looked after in hospitals 24 hours a day. People need to be looked after when they get old and cannot look after themselves 24 hours a day. But we are not talking about that; we are talking about people going out and selling stuff.

There is no shortage of opportunity in this country to buy stuff. There is, though, very much a shortage of time for people to be a family—to spend time with their children. I enjoyed watching my daughters play sport on a Saturday morning. It was one of those lovely times. I would sleep in a little, then we would get up and have breakfast together, then we would go down and watch the kids play netball, and then we would come home, I would go to Harriers and my friends would be there.

When Saturday trading was introduced, we were told that we would have a choice and that it was not compulsory. My retailing friends said: “You’ll not get me selling on a Saturday. I enjoy my leisure too much.” Yeah, right. It was not by demand. The shops were empty. It was pushed by a few very large chains. The shops in those large chains were not full of customers. They had to do a very hard sell. They had to advertise and advertise and advertise. Slowly, it took off, and then the smaller shops decided that they were missing out and they would do it too. Eventually I had no choice. They destroyed my livelihood. I had to sell on a Saturday like everybody else. I never saw my son play sport on a Saturday. When one goes overseas, one expects to behave the way people overseas behave—“When in Rome, do as the Romans do”. It may seem like a rearguard action, and I admit it is.

I think Mark Peck said earlier that we would never see the shops open on Christmas Day. I would not be so sure, because I can remember when it was said that we would never see shops open on a Sunday, and it happened. Not being able to shop is not the end of the world. Somebody spoke about having to travel for 2 hours to go shopping. That is not the only choice. People could take their families out fishing. Parents might play with their children, or stay home and talk with them. People might go out into the garden. Members can say that people have choices. It appals me that, in a society like ours, when we have never had so much stuff and we so desperately need time, we decide to open the shops again.

I believe in the principle of appropriate decision-making. I think local communities should make those decisions. But sometimes there needs to be a higher law, and that is what we are here for—to give a direction to the community. Life will not fall apart if Easter Sunday trading happens, but it will not get any better. People say to me: “Mike, do you remember when you campaigned against Saturday shopping? The world has not fallen apart.” I tell them to have a look around for a while. Families are under extreme stress. We have a lack of purpose and a lack of reason for being. When shopping is people’s main source of recreation, I say we have lost our way. We will be opposing this bill.

That was the Green spokesman Mike Ward. We have a situation here where the Green’s health spokesman, Nandor Tanczos, expects to be able to buy his cannabis 24/7 on 365 days of the year, yet the Greens will not let us open our shops for the tourists who are going past the door. But it is OK for the Greens to be smoking dope—which is against the law—promoting it, and doing it every day of the year as a religious experience.

The ACT party rises to support this bill—

Hon David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I understand what the point of order will be and I was going to bring it to the member’s notice. You may not suggest any illegality on the part of any member of Parliament.

RODNEY HIDE: I am not suggesting it; I am stating it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The act of doing what you were talking about is illegal and that must not be suggested in respect of any member or any group of members.

RODNEY HIDE: It is one of those things. If I was suggesting that Nandor Tanczos smokes cannabis, I take it back. I am now misleading the House, but at least I am within the rules.

We rise to support this bill and we commend Mr Peter Brown for bringing it to the House’s attention. I hope that he will take up Mr Peck’s suggestion and that the House will agree to send it to the Commerce Committee because there is no doubt that it will be treated expeditiously by a committee that is well chaired and has some very wise heads that have spent years and years and years considering shop trading hours legislation. I say that we can process the bill expeditiously.

I will pick up on a couple of points. Why is it that we cannot just trust the people? Why is it that in this House we have to decide which shops can open when? Do we have some divine inspiration here this night that means we can decide that it is not OK for shops in Rotorua, Tauranga, and Mount Maunganui to open, but it is OK for shops in Taupō and Queenstown to open? No one in this House can defend that decision on any rational grounds. This bill comes along and we are asked to make an exception for Easter Sunday. That is interesting. So can a shop now open on an Easter Sunday if it chooses to? Oh, no. It still has to have the agreement of the local authority. I ask Mr Brown whether we do that for any other day.

Peter Brown: No.

RODNEY HIDE: No. So suddenly we have councils deciding for 1 day out of 365 whether shops can open in their district.

Brian Connell: Elect the shoppers.

RODNEY HIDE: Yes! Why can we not just leave it up to the business people and save all that hassle? Why could we not just say that shops can open on Easter Sunday? What does it actually have to do with the local authority?

Peter Brown: The member’s got a point.

RODNEY HIDE: I thank Mr Brown. I know he has supported our bill. Whose shop is it? It does not belong to those of us in this House. It does not belong to the local authority. It belongs to the business owner. Mike Ward says that they do not really want to open. They do not have to open. No one is forcing us to go shopping.

Brian Connell: The Green member spoke about choice.

RODNEY HIDE: Yes. The Greens speak about choice for some things, but I cannot refer to that because of the Standing Orders. They even decide which rules they will follow. They sit in this House passing laws and then decide which ones they will follow and which ones they will not. That is what Green MPs do.

I say to members of this House that this bill is a move towards liberalisation. I know that my friend Mr Tim Barnett agrees with that. He will be saying that people should be able to trade on Easter Sunday in all manner of things, subject to getting approval from the local council.

Peter Brown: I bet the brothels are open.

RODNEY HIDE: That is a good point. I bet they are, too. Tourist trades and all the brothels will be open. So what about the garden centres? How come the people of New Zealand can go out and buy their marijuana and go to the local brothel but law-abiding citizens cannot go to the garden centre and buy some soil, a few plants that they can legitimately grow, and a spade?

Brian Connell: They can do it in Taupō.

RODNEY HIDE: They can do it in Taupō. Let us send this bill to the Commerce Committee, let us pass it, and let us get going.

I rise as a member of United Future to talk about the Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill. I am sorry to say that we are not all in agreement over this bill, but two of us will certainly be voting in favour of it. Personally, I wonder why it has taken so long for this bill to look as if it will go to the next stage. I think that this bill has been a long time coming. We have had other bills that have tried to do the same sort of thing, and every time there has been a strange stumbling block about why shops should or should not open. What really amazes me is that we are even having this discussion at all. Surely it is the right of employers and employees to decide when, where, and what they will open and for whom. They make the decisions; they make the money. There is no risk for the Government or for anybody, other than satisfying the needs of members of a local population who choose with their wallets to come and visit the premises. It seems to me that we are really encountering a certain geographic discrimination.

It is all right, as Rodney Hide has pointed out, for shops to be open in certain parts of the country and not in other parts. That is geographic discrimination. Quite frankly, every business should be allowed to open any damn day it chooses, whether that is Easter, Christmas, or the middle of the night. I could not care less. It is the business owners’ business, it is their right to open, and it is the public’s right to decide whether they will go in and spend their money.

We listened to an extraordinary contribution from the Green member who talked about some higher principle. It seems to me that the only higher principle that he likes is his own. He wants to ban the opportunity for people to choose to go to a shop on Easter Sunday and spend their money. So it is a higher principle that he adheres to, but he denies the opportunity for everybody else to have their higher principles that might conflict with his.

One of the things that really strikes me as being absurd is, why do we not allow employers and employees to be able to have freedom of choice on when they want to work, and also to choose when and how to be a family, if that is the flipside of the coin? We do not always have to decide that Saturdays and Sundays are times for family and that the rest of the time is a time for work. Different families have different requirements and different needs.

I had shift work for many, many years, and I chose not to take Saturday and Sunday off, because I did not want to be off work when everybody else was. I wanted to have a clear run when going to the shops, or to the theatre or cinema, and so it was very, very valuable for me to be able to choose the time I wanted to have off. So why discriminate against that freedom of choice? And why discriminate between one group of employees and another? The police are still working, hospitals are working, and the hospitality industry is still running. So not only is there geographic discrimination, but also the type of business that one is in becomes discriminated against—but for what reason? Hospitality is not an essential item. People can buy food the day before, and cook at home, but we think there should be an exemption for the hospitality industry. Why should there not be an exemption for every other thing? We sometimes want to buy books on a Sunday, Saturday, or any other day, and it seems ridiculous to have a mandate that says we cannot.

Besides, this Government should be in favour of more wealth creation, if for no reason other than its predatory desire to keep plundering the wealth of those who create it in the first place. So I would assume that Labour is in favour of this bill.

This bill also touches only the tip of the iceberg, because there are other days in the year, too, that should be left up to both employers and employees to decide for themselves how, when, and where they choose to open for business. Let the public choose with their wallets, and let us not have an edict from on high, based on the prejudices and ideologies of the few.

I rise to speak on this Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill, and I wish to preface my remarks by going back in time. When I did that by looking at the Hansard, I saw the interesting issue, which has arisen almost decade by decade, in that we finally realised that there needed to be change. That need for change was recognised first of all in 1980, when, for the first time in New Zealand, Saturday trading became legal. Then in March 1990, there was a very unusual situation in this country, whereby Sunday trading became legal under the legislation at the time, but that was after the extraordinary decision made by the Government of the day, by Order in Council, to move in late 1989 to Sunday trading. The decision to allow it to proceed was made by Cabinet, not by the people or by Parliament. So in March 1990, the very issues that are before members today were debated in this House.

The interesting thing about that debate is that the very kinds of submissions that were made and talked about in the select committee then, are the ones that have already been advanced here. The major body of submissions was made—160 of them—by people who were concerned about their Sunday. Those people were concerned about Sunday trading and its effect and impact upon family life. In the course of their submissions, they ranged all over, saying that it would cause divorce, family breakdown, and a whole number of irretrievable aspects of family life that would not be seen again. Of course, the reality now is that Sunday trading has been established. It was established by law in the legislation that members are looking at as being a part of the legislation that needs changing today, and it has waited until now for Parliament to once again look at the issues that are before the House and that have been debated tonight.

The people took no part, and had no real voice in that earlier decision. The issue I want to bring to the House’s attention is that this bill provides for the local community and local people to have their part in regard to Easter Sunday. Why Easter Sunday? Why not Christmas Day or Anzac Day? It is because in the fabric of our lives and in our tradition and our history, there is something about that day that still deserves separate recognition. I would commend those who think that way. Therefore, when I heard Mr Ward speak about family life, that is something that I commend, although it is a choice and an aspect that is not pleasing to all people.

But if this bill is passed and goes to its final form, the local community will have every opportunity to express its mind. After consultation, members of the local community will be able to pick up the concerns of the employer groups and employees that have already been enunciated in this House. Those family groups will be able to have their say about how the legislation impacts upon, say, Kaikohe—a wonderful little town in the mid-north. Those people who are affected by the implications of industrial legislation on being able to open or not, and its impact upon their employees, such as at The Warehouse, for example, will be able to express opinions before the local council.

The local council would determine, as the representative local body on behalf of its people, what the attitude to this 1 day—Easter Sunday—should be. I say again that this is not about Christmas Day or Anzac Day; it is Easter Sunday, which is of equal significance to a considerable number of people in our community.

So I stand to support the bill. I know that in places like Paihia and Parnell, people enjoy this option at present for all sorts of excellent commercial reasons, and there is no sound reason why on a case by case basis, deliberately, and in response to local needs, the local community, which in this case would be the council, cannot make a choice about its Easter Sunday. So to that degree, despite the fact that I know that in my home district, many will oppose this bill for excellent reasons, I want to emphasise again that this bill is about a choice—a deliberate choice, made locally—that affects only those who wish take up the offer that this bill may make to them in the commercial or family sense.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In my opening speech, I foreshadowed that I would move that this bill go to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I have now taken the advice of many members in the House, and I seek leave to move the bill to the Commerce Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

I will try to briefly address the issues that have been raised by many members in the House. First of all, I want to make it absolutely, categorically clear that there is no intention to apply the regulations of this bill to Christmas Day or Anzac Day.

Sue Kedgley: Not yet.

PETER BROWN: The member says “Not yet”, but I would say that there is no mood or spirit in this House—and certainly there is no mood in my party—for Christmas Day to be included in this sort of legislation. Second, I recognise the point that Mark Peck made that this bill does not put any restrictions on working people or put pressure on people to work. I tried to imply that that issue would be addressed by the local bodies when they considered whether shops should open. I believe that that is where it is best addressed, because the local councils know intimately the people who make up their communities.

In terms of Tauranga and Rotorua, I have to say that it is the concerns of Tauranga and Rotorua in particular that have driven us to push this bill. They are both rapidly growing cities—Tauranga is probably the fastest-growing city in New Zealand—and they want to be able to open their shops on Easter Sunday. Rotorua is an equally fast-growing city, and it is very largely dependent on tourism. For it to have its shops closed and the people to come in, bypass Rotorua, and then go on to Taupō, is really hard to take, and that is putting it bluntly.

Members of Parliament must respect local people—people who live and work in their own regions. They must respect them to the degree that those people are allowed to make their own choices on certain issues.

This is a very good issue whereby local people can say whether they want shops to open on Easter Sunday. In Mount Maunganui we had a vicar called Geoff Cranshaw—he is no longer there; he has moved on to greener pastures—who was totally in favour of shops opening on Easter Sunday. He said that as a result of the shops opening, he would get more and more people into his church. He was very confident that family people, and people who were out doing their shopping, would come into his church. I think that that is a view shared by many in the church community.

I was disappointed by the Green members’ contribution. It appears they know better than anybody else. They have been elected to Parliament and sit in some of these fine, green, leather seats, and then they think they know better than the average guy outside. They do not. A member comes to Parliament as a representative of the people.

Rodney Hide: They wouldn’t let you eat a chicken.

PETER BROWN: Would they not? They would not eat a chicken? I do not know about that. The point I am making is that when we come to Parliament, we are no better or worse than the people we represent. This bill is about allowing local communities the ability to make a decision. It is absolutely ridiculous that the communities of Queenstown, Taupō, Nelson, and some of the others I listed earlier, can have their shops open with no problems whatsoever, but the rest of the country’s shops are closed. I really resent the Green members implying that they know better than others.

I thought Marc Alexander made a very good point when he highlighted the fact that many people in New Zealand now work shifts and unusual hours. I thank the member for raising that. I thought of my own son and his wife when he raised that point. My son is an airline pilot. I want members to imagine how it would be if he did not work on Easter Sunday, or on any Sunday or particular day. He works as required by the community and the public. His wife, Karen—a tall, slim lady—is a police officer. She is at the beck and call of the whole community when things go wrong, not just on Easter Sunday, but on any day of the week and at any time of the day or night.

I conclude by moving that the Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill be considered by the Commerce Committee and that the committee be directed to report back to the House on or before 16 December 2004.

I raise a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker. I seek leave on the Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill for a party to cast votes for the Ayes and the Noes, and to record abstentions, notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b).

My understanding was that this was to be a normal personal vote. It certainly is the expectation of the Labour Party that those for whom I am not, as whip, holding proxies will expect the ringing of the bells and will, as normal, progress to the Chamber.

Leave has been sought by Mr Tisch for a split party vote. The remedy to the member’s question lies in that. Leave has been sought by Mr Tisch for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is. Therefore, a personal vote will be held. Before we get to that point, the question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion will say “Aye”, of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Ayes have it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker. If we are going to have a personal vote and there is going to be the ringing of the bells—

We will just go back a step. I think some members were confused as to what the question was. The question was that the bill be read a first time. I will put that question again, because I do not think it was clear to any members. That will decide the issue. The question is that the motion be agreed to, and the motion was that the bill be read a first time. Those who are of that opinion will say “Aye”, of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Noes have it. The Ayes have it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Is a personal vote called for? That is the point.

LINDSAY TISCH: The confusion is that people think this is just a normal vote. The point Mr Benson-Pope mentioned before is that although I sought leave to have a split vote, that was denied. We are now moving into a personal vote. That is the process we should be going for. Green members have to vote against it. Some are voting for it. We are calling now for a personal vote.

I agree with that. But for the Green Party’s “No” vote, the motion would have been agreed to and that would have been the end of the matter. We can be grateful in many ways for the “No” vote. Does any member call for a personal vote? That is fine, we shall have a personal vote on this issue.