Peters Jim: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
Peters Jim: Shop Trading Hours (Easter Trading Local Exemption) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15504] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 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.