Robertson GrantGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to thank my colleague Mojo Mathers for that speech because the theme that she took of What does this mean for families?" is something that every member of this Committee should think about tonight. Having been on the receiving end of a few lectures from people on the other side of the House about what is important for strengthening families in our society it would seem that those high-minded principles about supporting family have gone out the window with the National Government in this particular piece of legislation except they have not because members on the other side of the Chamber like Simon O'Connor know full well that this piece of legislation runs counter to building strong families and strong communities in our country. It is an absolute joke if members opposite think that what is now in the provisions in the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper 179 for employees to have a right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday means anything at all. We get lectures about how we do not understand what happens in business. Well Mr Hudson put yourself in the shoes of a low-income New Zealander who has been lucky enough to get a job—probably paying only the minimum wage—in the retail industry and the word comes around that people are needed for Easter Sunday. What do they do? Do they take that time to spend with their family—the precious hours the few that they get; this might be their second job? Or do they take that time and say "I'd better say yes because I don't know where the next set of hours are coming from because I don't know whether my job is secure enough and because my rate of pay is so low that I have to scratch out every single hour." That is not supporting families. This bill and these clauses do not provide choice. They do not provide choice for employees and we know full well that the practice of an employment relationship is not even. The reason we have laws like the Employment Relations Act in New Zealand—and that Act itself recognises the uneven nature of that relationship—is that we need to protect employees and this bill does not do that. It pushes people away from that. We need in my view to take a stand on this piece of legislation. I am not a person as many of my colleagues will know who shies away from going into shops. I am somebody who enjoys it. I am actually one of those rare males who enjoys getting into a shop—and I will take the Chair down to David Jones at the next opportunity I get and sort him out with a few items from the menswear section there. But there is no need whatsoever—Dr Megan Woods: Is there a David Jones in Wainuiōmata?GRANT ROBERTSON: No "David Jones Wainuiōmata" is the next store that is opening! It is only on Lambton Quay at this stage. But there is no need for us to break into the very days that we currently protect and say should not be broken into in terms of this kind of law. I think National members might want to reflect on having a piece of legislation where the very people who are charged with implementing it do not want it. That is what they have managed to set up here. It is a piece of legislation where they have dumped it all on territorial authorities which have come back and said: "No don't do it that way. It's too complicated. It's not going to work." They have managed to put themselves in a position where the very process by which they want to implement this is being held up as one that will not work. Lawrence Yule when he came to the Commerce Committee said: "Please don't do it by by-laws. They are complicated. They are subject to appeals. They are subject to judicial challenges." This is the head of the Local Government New Zealand council saying to the National Government "You've got it wrong." and it is as my colleague Clare Curran says because those members have tried it every other way and Parliament has rejected it. But they come back again and again and this time they are making it the responsibility of local government to try to carry this off. It is not good enough. If the Government wants to do this it needs to pass a law that applies at a national level. I would oppose that as well myself and I acknowledge strongly that there are people in the community who say: "Why not give us a go to do that?" but—[Bell rung] The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Grant Robertson.GRANT ROBERTSON: I will not take the whole of this call but I acknowledge that there are people in the community who say: "Why not give us the option? Why not give us the choice?". This is the time for Parliament to show leadership. This is the time for Parliament to stand up and say there are times when Parliament can say no we want to support families. We want to give workers some protections about time off to spend with their families and we want to uphold the rights of all New Zealanders to not feel that every single given moment has to be taken up with work. We have a chance again to send a message out that this House respects the rights of New Zealanders and their families. We respect the fact that there are 363½ other days that people can spend shopping and we do not need to pass this bill."