Drawn

A ballot for two Member's Bills was held today, and the following bills were drawn:

• Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill (Cameron Luxton)
• Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill (Marama Davidson)

The first bill seems almost certain to pass under the current Parliament. And honestly, the idea of religious no-trading days is bullshit, and we're well rid of it (now do ANZAC day!) Unfortunately, as introduced it does not included the required fix to protect worker's rights of making easter Sunday a public holiday. If it is not amended to included that provision, then the onus will be on the next government to fix that as quickly as possible.

Criminal enterprises

It was easter over the weekend, which meant the annual "debate" over relic easter trading laws, and various businesses deliberately flouting them for profit. I'd prefer those out-dated laws to be reformed - my preference is to make easter Sunday a public holiday, which solves all the problems other than business greed - but until they are, breaking them remains a crime. And where businesses deliberately commit crimes for profit, they need to be punished. Unfortunately, the fine for breaching the law - $1000 - is derisory, and clearly an insufficient deterrent (some criminal businesses clearly regard it as a cost of doing business).

Fortunately there's a solution for that. When a business makes more than $30,000 from breaking the law, that is "significant criminal activity". When they have knowingly, directly or indirectly, derived a benefit from significant criminal activity - which is clearly the case here - that means they have "unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity". And where a business has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity, the resulting revenue can be taken under a profit forfeiture order under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. Note that when a business is convicted of a crime, that automatically meets the test for granting such an order, so the only legal question is the amount - a question which can easily be resolved with a search warrant or production order for their accounting records.

The question then is: will the police enforce the law, or will they allow these criminal enterprises to profit from their crimes? Or is it not a crime when done by the rich?

No consensus on easter trading

The Commerce Committee has reported back on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill (which would dump the problem of easter trading on local authorities), and been unable to reach a decision. National members supported the bill, with some amendments. Labour and the Greens opposed it. And NZ First were just confused about it, like they are about the rest of the modern world. The net result is that the bill will be back before the House, but without the usual amendments and improvements the select committee process provides.

This is really a reflection of the lack of social consensus outside Parliament on the issue. The easter trading ban is silly and archaic, a relic of christian oppression. But getting rid of it would replace the past, no-longer extant religious oppression with the very real, here and now oppression of your boss. And the latter is now so pervasive and extreme, that retaining an archaic trading ban put in place by a dying religion most kiwis no longer even pay lip service to looks like the better choice to many. And it doesn't help that no politician seems willing to support the blindingly obvious protective measure of a public holiday (because progressives don't want religions dictating our holidays, while capitalists don't want holidays at all)

National's bill isn't a "solution" to any of this. Instead of finding a consensus, it would simply wash their hands of the problem - while making it a perpetually active shitfight in every local authority across the country. So we won't just have a stupid law, inconsistently applied - we'll have a patchwork of such laws, their application subject to change without notice. And it will make religion, which isn't generally a political issue, an electoral issue in local body politics. This isn't a recipe for social harmony - but it would let National declare victory and go home, which is all that seems to matter to them now. Unfortunately, with National whipping their vote, it looks like this will pass.

Making Easter trading someone else's problem

The Easter Sunday trading ban is an absurd law, a relic of past Christian oppression. Every couple of years some National backbencher notices this, and puts up a bill to repeal it. These bills invariably fail because they fail to sufficiently protect workers from being forced to work on a long weekend, while being opposed by National's bigot rump. And the obvious solution - make Easter Sunday a public holiday - is opposed by the sorts of people who oppose the trading ban as a) religious and b) "anti-business" (because people forced to work would be entitled to time and a half plus a day in lieu).

But now National has a new solution: wash their hands of the issue and make it someone else's problem:

The Government is to enable local communities, through councils, to decide whether retailers can open on Easter Sunday, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse announced today.

“The current rules around shop trading over the Easter period are complex and relatively arbitrary. The law allows certain shops selling specific items to remain open, while others must close their doors.
[...]

“The proposed law change will enable communities to choose whether or not to allow trading. It will mean regions, especially tourist areas, can respond where there is strong demand for Easter Sunday trading,” Mr Woodhouse says.

Except that if the problem is arbitrariness, this doesn't solve it at all, merely makes it the responsibility of councils rather than central government. It is simply political sleight of hand, to make it seem like they have done something when they have not. And of councils really do make their own decisions, then we will still have the current patchwork where shops in some places can trade while others can not. Meanwhile, the equally arbitrary and absurd prohibitions against trading on other Christian holidays (and on Anzac Day), and on alcohol sales and TV advertising, will remain. Which means that while you may be able to shop, you won't be able to buy a coffee if your favourite cafe has a liquor licence.

As for their supposed "protection" of workers who want their long weekend, given their other changes to employment law (not to mention the existence of 90-day "trial periods"), these are simply toothless. All in all, it looks like a bad political fix.

Supposedly this won't be a conscience vote for National. I'd love to know how they got that past their bigot rump, and what ructions it might cause.

A good question

At Easter this year, Oderings garden centres opened their doors in violation of the law - just as they have every year since 1970. As a result, they were today fined the maximum amount of $1,000 per store. But while doing so, the judge asked a good question:

When the case last called, Judge Gary Macaskill said the Government's labour service should take stronger legal steps to stop businesses from flagrantly flouting public holiday trading bans.

"I noted some time ago that if the Department of Labour was serious about nurseries and other similar business opening on these days, then they should go to the High Court and ask for an injunction to stop them from doing so. But they don't, and one wonders why," Judge Macaskill said.

So, why doesn't the Department of Labour - now MoBIE - do this? After all, it is their job to enforce the law, and the current system is clearly not working. An injunction would be easily obtainable, the costs are not going to be any higher than the current wasted prosecutions, and unlike those, it would actually be effective (in that garden centres which did open would be in contempt of court and open to some fairly strong penalties - including the jailing of their management).

Or is the real problem that the Department of Labour doesn't actually want to enforce the law effectively...?

The absurdity of Easter liquor laws

Every Easter, we have the usual argument about Easter trading. The current law is an absurd relic of Christian oppression, aimed at forcing people to celebrate a particular religion by the simple expedient of giving them nothing else to do, and it has no place in a modern, secular society. But every attempt at changing it - and there have been eight in the last 15 years - has failed, largely because the MPs pushing them are too stupid to include the obvious and popular compromise measure of making Easter Sunday a public holiday. Sadly, this year's example, promoted by Tau Henare, seems to be no different.

Meanwhile, while attention is focused on shop trading hours, equally absurd Easter laws get ignored. Broadcasters can't show ads over Easter, presumably because it might offend the Easter Bunny or something. I virulently hate TV advertising, to the extent that I now download all my TV simply to avoid it, but the idea of banning it out of "respect" for someone's imaginary friend is absolutely ludicrous, and I can't imagine it passing a BORA analysis (promoting a particular faith isn't even a legitimate public purpose, let alone an important one). And then there's the liquor laws... liquor stores can't trade over Easter, and you can't buy a drink in a hotel or tavern unless you're there for the purposes of a meal (which on Sunday meant that I couldn't even buy a coffee at a particular establishment in Wellington, unless I wanted to sit down for a meal I didn't want. No, a bowl of chips wouldn't be enough to satisfy their liquor licence. Fortunately, there were other establishments not so constrained...) Again, its the Christians being the fun police: the weekend is important to them, so we all have to suffer. And again, it has no place in a modern, secular, liberal society. If Christians want to not drink over Easter, that's fine. But the idea that the rest of us should be forced not to drink (or in my case, buy coffee) fails Mill's Law. It is simply the tyranny of the majority - or the tyranny of a past majority - in action.

You'd think that with the changes in our society, these laws would gradually be working their way off the statute book as the law was updated. You'd be wrong. The government's new Alcohol Reform Bill reiterates the ban on Easter liquor sales. Despite the fact that we now live in a secular country, we're still forced to suffer under religious laws.

How to make your Easter trading bill a failure

Stuff reports that Jacqui Dean delayed her Easter trading bill today because it did not have the numbers. And its no wonder - unlike her 2006 effort [PDF] the bill includes no clauses protecting workers from being forced to work on those days. I guess that with a National government, she thought she didn't need them. Fortunately, she's just been proved wrong.

Dean is now apparently amending her bill to include such a clause. I can't see how that's legal under Standing Orders; the best she can offer is to lodge an amendment at Select Committee. And that might not be enough to convince people. If it doesn't, she has no-one but herself to blame - her arrogance has sunk her own bill.

Meanwhile, the obvious solution - making Easter Sunday a public holiday - has once again been ignored. Until Easter trading bills include such a clause, they deserve to fail.

Easter trading defeated

Todd McClay's Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill was defeated at its first reading tonight, 62 - 59. It was a conscience vote, but Red Alert has the full list here. The margin this time was smaller than last time (62 - 59 vs 64 - 57), so it will only take a few votes to switch.

I'm a little surprised at this result - I'd expected the bill to at least make it to select committee, as it did the last two times - but also glad. While I don't give a damn about Easter, and think trading bans are a little silly, when it is repealed, it has to be done right. And that means making Easter Sunday a public holiday so that people's current de facto holiday is protected.

Easter trading defeated

57 votes in favour, 64 votes against. I'm sure there'll be another bill (though under Standing Orders it will have to wait a year), and maybe they'll convince more people next time if they address the holidays issue.

Correction: Standing Orders only bar substantially bills within the same calendar year - so there could be a new Easter trading bill in the ballot in January.

The end of Section 59

Today is a Member's Day, and Sue Bradford's Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill is up for its third reading. Following last fortnight's stunning "compromise" (which was actually a complete surrender to Bradford's position), the bill is expected to pass by a huge margin, 116 - 5, with only ACT, Taito Phillip Field, and United Future's two hardline Christian MPs voting against. For those who want to listen in, debate will start sometime between 16:30 and 17:00, and depending on how many speakers there are, we could conceivably have a vote in in time for the six o'clock news (and if not, it'll be at eight, half an hour after the dinner break).

Meanwhile, Steve Chadwick's Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill will also almost certainly come up for a vote. This passed its first reading by a wide margin, 80 - 38 - but so did Jacqui Dean's bill, which lost its Second Reading two weeks ago. A lot of MPs changed their mind between the first and second readings, but its unclear whether it was becuase they had come out in opposition to Easter trading, or because they opposed the form proposed in Dean's bill (for example, the lack of protection for workers). I don't want to risk guessing whether it will pass or fail (entrail readers may wish to start comparing votes in the Conscience Votes Database and see if they can draw a conclusion), but if it passes, I hope the government will move swiftly to ensure that Easter Sunday is listed as a public holiday to ensure it is on a par with other holidays.

Bump & update: It looks like the vote may just squeeze in before the news.

First Easter trading bill fails

Jacqui Dean's Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill lost its second reading 37 - 84. It was a personal vote, and I hope to have a full voting record tomorrow. As for why, there are two possible reasons. The first is that MPs have again decided to reject Easter trading. The second is that a large number of Labour MPs would rather see Steve Chadwick's rival Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill (which has a more flexible decision mechanism and better protections for workers) pass instead. We'll just have to wait until the next Member's Day to find out.

The obvious solution

It's Easter, and so we're seeing the annual whine from retailers outraged that they are legally required to close for the day. And they have a point - the law is a mess, it has numerous loopholes and exceptions you can drive a bus through, and public opinion seems to have moved on from the days when Easter was considered sacred. This is reflected in the fact that there are not one, but two bills to repeal the restriction currently before Parliament - one of them from a Labour MP. Both bills passed their first readings by wide margins, and I expect one or other of them will probably become law (likely with amendments incorporating the desirable features of the other bill - assuming they are ruled in order).

But while public opinion seems to have shifted on whether shops should be forced to close at Easter, it is still right behind Easter remaining a holiday. Unfortunately, this is an area neither bill addresses - while trading restrictions would be relaxed, Easter Sunday would be treated just like any other day, with the result that retail workers would effectively be robbed of time off they presently enjoy (Easter Friday OTOH is currently listed in the Holidays Act 2003). Which suggests the obvious solution: make Easter Sunday a public holiday. This has been done for all other holidays, even those like Good Friday and Christmas Day when shops are forbidden to open; the reason it hasn't been done seems to be a legacy of the time when nothing opened on Sundays anyway.

Unfortunately due to Standing Orders it may not be possible to amend the bills to make a consequential amendment to the Holidays Act, it being outside the scope of either bill (everything is possible with leave, of course, but I can't see the right wing parties, who have segments opposed to the very idea of paid public holidays, agreeing to it). Instead, the government would have to bring a Holidays Amendment Bill to fix the problem - and probably by next Easter. On the plus side, it would at least give them something to fill up the Order Paper, and delay the embarrassment of running out of government business a little longer...

Update: And Snap! from Span, though she's in favour of keepin gthe restrictions, rather than merely agnostic.

Easter trading bills back

Earlier this year, two Member's Bills addressing Easter trading were drawn from the ballot: Jacqui Dean's Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill and Steve Chadwick's Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. The former would have added Wanaka and Tauranga to the list of districts allowed to trade over Easter, while the latter would allow communities to decide for themselves, but only addressed Easter Sunday. A second difference was that Chadwick's bill contained protections for workers similar to those in the original Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990, while Dean's bill would have left workers significantly worse off than before (see the respective "In the ballot" posts here and here).

Both bills passed their first reading with significant majorities and were forwarded to the Commerce Committee. The committee considered the bills in tandem, and has now reported them back [PDF], recommending that both be passed. However, they've made some changes. Both bills now have extremely robust worker protection clauses ensuring that workers cannot be forced to work over Easter, or discriminated against if they refuse. The scope of Dean's bill has also been extended to include every local authority in the country; it is expected that those that want to will opt out, with an amendment passed during the bill's Committee Stage. Unfortunately, under Standing Order 288, the committee was unable to take the obvious step of merging the bills, or incorporating the clearly superior local consultation provisions from Chadwick's bill into Dean's - so now we have the worst of both worlds: a bill which allows communities to decide for themselves, but which only affects Easter Sunday, or one which affects both days but leaves the decision in the hands of local councils with no scope for public consultation before the bill reaches committee. Hopefully this will be able to be addressed by a Supplementary Order Paper during the committee stage, allowing the best parts to be passed as one bill.

The issue as far as I'm concerned is really public holidays; neither bill amends the Holidays Act 2003, so if shops open on Good Friday workers are entitled to time and a half and a day in lieu (and under the protection provisions, cannot be forced to work). Unfortunately, no such protection exists for Easter Sunday, it being seen as unnecessary when shops were forbidden to open. But if we're going to have Easter in the Holidays Act, while at the same time allowing shops to open if they're willing to properly compensate their workers, then it strikes me that Easter Sunday should be given the same protection and be listed in s44. This would be irrelevant to most workplaces, as offices tend not to operate on a Sunday anyway (the Holidays Act only grants a paid day off if it is a day that would otherwise be a working day) - but it would ensure a level playing field between the two days. The select committee considered a consequential amendment to the Holidays Act to be "beyond the scope of [the] bill[s]", and I'm not sure if an SOP can be put to propose it. But it would be IMHO an excellent solution.

The bills will get their Second Reading in late February.

Drawn

The usual ballot for Member's Bills was held today, and the following bill was drawn:

• Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill (Steve Chadwick)

This is an interesting result, given that Jacqui Dean's rivial bill has just been sent to committee - but I've been told that it won't fall foul of Standing Order 265. One bill proposes an exemption from the law for a particular area (it is pork for Wanaka), while the other proposes a procedure by which local communities can decide for themselves. I'm not sure what provisions there are for a select committee to consider bills in parallel, but I'd hope that they do it in this case.

There were only 29 bills in the ballot today, and only one new one: Sue Bradford's Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. As usual the Greens and ACT used all their slots, Labour made no effort, and National again failed to reach its leader's stated aim of having every MP put a bill forward.

Defeated

Jeanette Fitzsimons' Dog Control (Cancellation of Microchipping Requirements) Amendment Bill was defeated in Parliament last night, losing 60 - 61. I'm not at all displeased by this. Microchipping is a basic means of identifying an animal, like a tag which is harder to lose or remove, and this isn't just something needed by dangerous dogs. The bill would have let all dogs off, which is better on equity grounds than excluding only the dogs of stroppy farmers who believe they're above the law - but I'd rather see them all chipped. Meanwhile, the whole debate is begining to smell increasingly of displacement behaviour, done simply to fill the policy deadlock. No-one can pass substantive policy, so instead they argue over dogs. Its a bit above the petty politics of parking accidents and tennis balls, but not by much.

Meanwhile, Jacqui Dean's Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill was sent to committee on a conscience vote. Hopefully while its there it will be amended to be more like Steve Chadwick's version. While I'm quite happy with the law as it stands, if it is going to be changed, I'd prefer to see it either repealed wholesale or for geographic exemptions to be decided by local communities. Dean's bill OTOH is just special pleading for people in Wanaka.

I have no information on Eric Roy's Marine Reserves (Consultation with Stakeholders) Amendment Bill, but I expect it to have been sent to committee unless MPs are feeling particularly vindictive (and that doesn't really seem to be the mood ATM, at least with Member's Bills).

There will be a ballot today for one more bill; I'll post information on it as it comes to hand.