Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I rise again to take a short call to oppose the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill which liberalises the shop trading hours for retail shops for example. I just wanted to quickly acknowledge my colleague Denise Roche who did ask the Speaker perhaps like other members to consider that we exercise a conscience vote on this legislation. I agree with other members of the Committee that we should exercise a true conscience vote when we are standing on our principles in this Chamber which is a very privileged place to stand and we get to personally exercise our vote.I did want to raise again the burn from my colleague Gareth Hughes around Standing Order 48 which says that the members of the House never have to sit in this House on a Sunday. It quite specifically says that The House must not sit on a Sunday." So we consider ourselves important enough to ensure that this House where we are all privileged does not sit on a Sunday. So I thank my colleague Gareth Hughes for raising that really important point. Once again we are disconnected; we get to take away the freedom of choice from other people who work—who are in paid employment like us. But we are not ruling out Easter Sunday as a protected day for workers.I also wanted to refer to this whole freedom of choice thing. This Government does not value freedom of choice. It is tightening up the laws to put people in retail trading employment to put those workers into the corner with less power which equates to less choice. It is really hard on my ears every time the members of this Government stand up and rave on about freedom of choice. Also the freedom of choice argument that is being used always assumes starting from a balanced a level playing field—and that is completely not true.So I did want to pick up on the important part of this legislation around the employment relationship and how it seeks to protect employees from having to work on the Easter Sunday. Yes strong laws are important to protect employee rights. Yes unions are effective and important. Yes strong laws to protect workers' rights are effective and important. But they do not always guarantee the protection because of the power relationship. I have had many instances of this grievance personally when I was employed and was in the community listening to the grievances of young female workers working in retail jobs particularly who had no power at all—despite the laws and despite unions—against sexual harassment.So we have got strong clear guidance around sexual harassment to protect employees but because of the imbalance in that power relationship one particular young woman came to me in my role as a human rights worker for the Human Rights Commission for 10 years with a focus on working with children and young people. One young woman came to me and talked about when she knew she was being sexually harassed by her boss—the person with more power who was in charge who knew the legislation who knew the workplace guidance who understood that that was illegal and all the rest of it but who still did it anyway because he could get away with it. What was she going to do? What was she going to do a 17- or 18-year-old young woman alone in a room who was being sexually harassed by someone with more power than her despite all the laws in the world. This is why these decisions have to be made on a nationwide basis. We have to ensure that there are strong protections for workers to truly have their rights cared for. So I did want to expand on that one a little bit more. Also there was widespread opposition—"