Mark Ron: Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7625. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): It is wonderful actually to be back in the House with the opportunity to speak and on a piece of legislation the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill that raises some curious ironies just having listened to the debate here this evening. I have to say from the outset that New Zealand First will support this bill through to the select committee. We do so because we understand the realities out there in terms of the economy and the opportunities that exist for people to create a living but with some reservations. Those reservations lie in the areas of employment and the way in which some employers behave. It is our desire that the rights of employees not be undermined through legislation that aids and abets unscrupulous employers who wish to create circumstances in the workforce where if a person chooses not to work on a day that they do not wish to work for religious or other reasons that employer may choose to constructively orchestrate that employee’s dismissal or orchestrate a reduction of hours or by other means or other measures make their continued employment there untenable.We would like to put very clearly on the record that we support this legislation through to the select committee for a constructive analysis for a constructive examination and for thorough public consultation and we will make our final decision once all of those things have occurred. But I cannot allow some of the comments and some of the hyperventilating that I have had to bear witness to this evening to go without some comment.I would have thought actually that if the Government wanted this legislation to go through it could have done it quite some time ago at far less cost to the taxpayer. I get a little bit nauseated by hearing lectures from members of the National Party both here in the House out on the hustings and through the media about how concerned they are about taxpayers’ money and the expenditure. Well we have wasted how many hours and how many tens of thousands of dollars seeing Mr McClay’s bill go through unsuccessfully when in actual fact this Government is just demonstrating what it could have done right from the outset. It could have taken the bill up as a Government bill put it on the floor of the House and rammed it through as it probably intends to do anyway.The other thing that I have got to comment on is Mr Hudson’s comments about choice. What a farcical speech that was. If the member truly believed in choice he would explain to the House why there is no choice—Brett Hudson: Good choice.RON MARK: Mr Hudson you have had your say so now it is our turn. If the member truly believes in freedom of choice then explain why all the members of his party are being whipped tonight.Mr Hudson let me take one back to the smacking legislation. The choice in the National Party ranks was so clear that members of the National Party back in the old days—you know when Helen Clark was the Prime Minister and John Key was in Opposition ranting and raving about what he was going to do in Government and how appalling the anti-smacking legislation was. That was not choice. They were whipped like a bunch of little puppies—puppies. So Mr Hudson can it. Can it because actually Mr Hudson you are like that old Hudson car—slow smoky rather rounded at the edges and going nowhere fast. And no one buys the crap we just heard this evening thank you.I want to go on to the other comments of Melissa Lee one of these other wonderful National Party members. She is from Korea as Wikipedia says. Melissa Lee told the House in her rather condescending manner which she is becoming renowned for that we need to grow up in New Zealand. Well I have got a short message: if you do not like New Zealand go back to Korea. That is the first message.The second message is—[Interruption] That got them going. The second message is let us look at public holidays in Korea—let us look at public holidays in Korea. So in Korea we have the Korean New Year. Do they work on the Korean New Year? No. Let us look at the independence day movement—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I would like to hear what the member is saying.RON MARK: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. So let us look at the public holidays in Korea where nobody—Hon Amy Adams: Racism and vitriol.RON MARK: Oh the Minister is upset. This is one Minister in the House who when she gets her little dander up cannot resist having a slap. Well Amy listen up—Hon Amy Adams: Only at racist comments.RON MARK: Oh I am a racist? Well telling the—[Interruption] Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. Look this is a robust debate and I will just ask you to calm things down. So Ron Mark you have the floor.RON MARK: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Without any overtures of racism let us look at the holidays in Korea that are public holidays that people do not work on. Coming to New Zealand and telling us we should grow up in our House where we allow freedom of speech is a little different to what we see. Buddha’s birthday—holy heck! So now we say that New Zealanders should have to work on a religious day but in Korea where Miss Lee comes from Buddha’s birthday on the eighth day of the fourth lunar month is a public holiday when no one works.So let us look at another National Party member. Oh jeepers—Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. This gentleman also understands and respects the value of religious days and the need for public holidays but he sits in this House ready to take a call—I guess—to support this legislation. But let us have a look at India. There are so many I just could not read them out in this time that I have available but one of the religious holidays in India is Easter—Easter—when people do not have to work. And there is Good Friday Easter Sunday St Thomas the Apostle the Blessed Virgin Mary the feast of St Francis Xavier and Christmas Day. And let us have a look at a few others: Eid ul-Fitr Eid ul-Adha Eid al-Ghadeer and let us not forget Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday.Do not come into this House preaching and telling New Zealanders to grow up. Do not give us the condescending rhetoric because on one hand we know that although certain people are towing the National Party line like a bunch of little whipped puppies back in their own world they would never ever dare stand up and say this.So I come right back to where I started. New Zealand First is happy to support this legislation going to the select committee for a constructive debate and for a constructive analysis. We actually differ from Labour. Being a former mayor and a member of Local Government New Zealand I talk regularly and frequently with those people. They have no objection to Local Government New Zealand making that decision within the territorial authorities. They do accept that it will incur costs.I would remind this Government that Local Government New Zealand has said time and time and time again that every time this Government passes on a new responsibility to Local Government New Zealand it puts costs on ratepayers and then the next thing we hear is Nick Smith standing up blasting local government for increasing rates. Well this piece of legislation will in Carterton probably cost the Carterton ratepayers around 100 grand a year just to go through the consultative process. That will put a 1 percent increase on rates just to cover this off. So my point I would make to the Government of the day is that when you are looking at the papers coming from Local Government New Zealand contesting and proposing other ways it may be able to raise revenue other than through rates think of this bill. Think of the compliance costs that this Government is foisting upon ratepayers of territorial authorities and address with an open mind that issue of revenue collection funding for local government.Every time this Government puts through legislation that passes on a responsibility along with compliance costs to territorial authorities it then sits there washes its hands and says: “Oh we’ve done a good job and now it’s up to the ratepayers to decide.” Well the bottom line is that ratepayers have no problem deciding themselves whether or not they want trading on certain days whether they see an economic advantage whether they see employment opportunities that they may lose and whether they see that it will be good for them.If we had a port like Tauranga with cruise ships coming in we may well want in Carterton or in Masterton or in south Wairarapa to service those cruise ships and have people working. But that is a decision we should make and that is a question we should analyse thoroughly at the select committee. But we in New Zealand First will not sit here and allow other members who come from different countries that actually do stand steadfastly by their religious holidays to sit here and preach to us and tell us that we should grow up.