Peck Mark: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
Peck Mark: Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11973] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 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! 
MARK PECK 
: 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. 
MARK PECK 
: Well I can cut cabbages— 
Brian Connell 
: You may go back to it! 
MARK PECK 
: 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.” 
MARK PECK 
: 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.