STATUTES AMENDMENT (SHOP TRADING AND HOLIDAYS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 March 2012.)

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:00): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on this matter. This debate is about the introduction of two half-day public holidays and other less significant reforms to the shop trading hours legislation in South Australia, as set out in the Statutes Amendment (Shop Trading and Holidays) Bill 2012. Let's just remember why we are here: we are here because this Premier is the puppet of the shop trading union—the shoppies union.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: We all know that it was the shoppies union that caused—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: Is this an important debate or isn't it?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Sorry?

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: As lead speaker.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: We all know that the Premier was put in his place by the shoppies union. We remember the scenes: Peter Malinauskas and Treasurer Snelling knocking on the door of premier Rann saying the shoppies union had decided that he was are no longer to be premier and the current Premier was going to be Premier. So the reason we are here is that the Premier, who holds his position because of a deal with the shoppies union, has now done another deal with the shoppies union about the extension of shop trading hours in the city. The bizarre thing about this particular bill is that it imposes public holiday costs on businesses right across the state so that people can shop in Adelaide.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: What about the workers?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Premier asks, 'What about the workers?' We will come to them in a second. The reality is that under this bill a cafe in Port Pirie will have to pay penalty rates so that people can shop in Rundle Mall; a hotel in Mount Gambler will have to pay penalty rates so that people can shop in Rundle Mall; and a plumber operating in the electorates in the suburbs on those new public holidays will have to pay penalty rates so that people can shop in Rundle Mall.

This Premier went out after the election, criticised the then leadership of the Labor Party saying they needed a new style. None of this 'announce and defend'; we need to consult and decide. Then this Premier, on a significant issue like shop trading hours, did a deal behind closed doors with the shoppies union and Business SA, but all the other business associations were not consulted (the motor traders, the Hotels Association, the restaurant and catering association, the Aged Care Association, the Printing Industries Association). All of the other industry associations were snubbed by a premier who said that the government needed a change of style. Well, the change of style should not be about just talking more quietly. It should be about an honest attempt to consult the business community on their costs.

The Liberal Party will not be supporting the provisions that bring in extra half-day public holidays because of the cost impost it will put onto those businesses without consultation by the government. There is no argument from our point of view why cafes in Port Pirie should have to pay penalty rates so that people can shop in Adelaide, so that people can shop in Rundle Mall. There is no reason why a hotel in Mount Gambier should have to pay penalty rates so that people can shop in Rundle Mall. There is no reason why electricians, plumbers and other businesses should have to pay penalty rates so that people can shop in Rundle Mall.

The Premier interjected earlier, 'What about the workers?' Let's talk about the workers for a second. I have been a police minister, and the Premier made great play at the Police Association's 100^th dinner saying that he is a former legal representative of their association, so the Premier knows this intimately as well. The police, nurses and other professions that have shiftwork and work on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve have done so for hundreds of years in Western democracies. That is part of those particular professions.

During the industrial relations negotiations with each of those professions, the hours they work and when they work are taken into consideration and, if people go to those particular awards that cover those particular professions, they will see that they have different leave entitlements. There are different employment entitlements to other professions to take into consideration the fact that they are working shiftwork, at unusual hours, for the benefit of society. They have different award conditions. Therefore, the issue about whether they work on Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve has been debated many times over the years through the industrial relations system and the appropriate decisions made.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Other people aren't working; that's why they get the penalty rates.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Minister for Manufacturing interjects saying that they are working when other people are not. That argument is put to the industrial commission (or its equivalent body) every time there is a wage dispute, and that has been considered many times over decades. Their award, which they work under—the provisions they work under have been adjusted on the merits of the argument.

Of course, if the government so believes this (that the public holiday rates should apply to those professions), there is nothing to have stopped them over the past 10 years during the time of this government bringing in higher salaries for the police and nurses, if they wish, without imposing public holiday rates on manufacturers, other retailers, cafes, hotels, aged care or catering. The government could have done that any day of the week in any wage negotiations with the nurses or the police. They have chosen not to, so let's have none of this fake argument from the ministers that somehow suddenly now this issue changes. It changes because the government has done a deal with the union that controls the government. There is no argument.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: What about Business SA?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Premier yelled out, 'What about Business SA?' They have done a deal without consulting a large section of the business constituency themselves. That is what the business community is saying to us, so go and speak to the motor traders or the Hotels Association or the restaurant and catering association or the Aged Care Association or the printing association. They cannot all have not been consulted. They cannot all have been consulted and turn around and say that they have not been consulted, Premier. The reality is that this is a deal with the shoppies union with a Premier who was put there on behalf of the shoppies union.

Let us go back a few steps. This government's history on shop trading hours is pretty ordinary. I still have letters in my office of the then opposition leader, Mike Rann, writing to small business saying, 'There will be no extension to Sunday trading under a Rann government,' and of course the Rann government did extend Sunday trading.

We had postcards sent to us only last year. All the MPs had postcards sent to us by the shoppies union saying, 'Don't let shopping occur on ANZAC Day. It would be outrageous to let shopping occur on ANZAC Day.' The very same shoppies union is now writing to us saying, 'Come on, get in the 21^st century! Allow shopping on ANZAC Day,' and the reason they are doing that is that the Premier needs a policy.

The Premier needs a policy and the policy is: they are going to enliven the city. For 10 years, the Liberal Party has said that you can liven up the city if you liberalise shop trading hours, and for 10 years this government sat there and said, 'No, no, no, no, no, no, no.'

Here we are: now they are going to start to liberalise shop trading hours, but the way they are doing it is to try to cut a deal with the union that is going to impose a very heavy cost on lots of small businesses right throughout the state when they do not need to do that. What they have not made out to the South Australian public is why cafes in Port Pirie and hotels in Mount Gambier have to pay 250 per cent or whatever the loading is.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It is 250 per cent. Well, if you go to other awards like plumbers and electricians, they will be different rates.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Are you sure about that?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: As the Minister for Small Business, go and have a look! Why should cafes and hotels in Mount Gambier, Port Lincoln and Ceduna—all of those regional areas—have to pay penalty rates so people can shop in Adelaide, and indeed not in Adelaide but in just the CBD of Adelaide? It is an unusual policy response and one that is going to cost small business dearly. The Liberal Party has listened to small business on this.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: No, you haven't.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: We have listened to small business on this and the Minister for Small Business keeps on interjecting. He keeps on interjecting because he is forced by his party discipline to vote against the small business block here. The Minister for Small Business interjected and I will respond.

The Minister for Small Business is going to vote with the government to force onto small businesses all around the state penalty rates so that people can shop in Rundle Mall. So, the small businesses in Gawler and the small businesses in Willunga are going to be paying a penalty rate so people can shop in Rundle Mall. That is the reality of it.

After 10 years of saying that somehow liberalising shop trading hours was going to hurt the state, all of a sudden with a new Premier, liberalising shop trading hours is somehow now good for the state. We welcome the Premier's coming to the Liberal Party principle at least of liberalising shop trading hours. We do not support the method by which you choose to get there.

In the economic climate that we have at the moment, with economic growth going backwards, with the worst economic performance of any state in mainland Australia, with housing sales at the worst since 1985—even worse than the State Bank—with housing starts at the bottom of the pack, with economic growth going backwards for two consecutive quarters and economic commentators saying that South Australia is in a recession, the last thing small business needs is extra cost imposed for no productivity gain, and that is exactly what you are imposing on them through these two half-day public holidays.

The reality is that we will now have, under this system, three types of shop trading in South Australia: the CBD, which will be open—if the government gets its way—for all bar about 2½ days a year; the suburbs, which are open most days of the year except on the public holidays which the government is opening up under this legislation; and the country areas, which are already fully deregulated, so while you cannot shop at Marion you can shop at Mount Gambier or Whyalla because the country areas of South Australia are already deregulated.

The country areas have been deregulated for many decades, and when those wage rates have been set by the Industrial Relations Commission—the various retail awards, etc.—the fact that those areas are deregulated has not been taken into consideration by the Industrial Relations Commission. This idea that you suddenly need to introduce two half-day public holidays to take into consideration the extension of shop trading hours is a fallacy; the country areas have been deregulated for decades. When shops in Adelaide are closed, you can go to Mount Barker, which has totally deregulated shopping. We have this bizarre position where people from Adelaide can drive to Mount Barker and shop, but they cannot shop in Stirling, for instance, or in Marion, which is just down the road.

Shop trading hours legislation has had an interesting history over time in the South Australian parliament. The opposition is not opposing the extension to trading on Easter Sunday or after 12 o'clock on ANZAC Day—we have advocated that for at least seven, eight or nine years. The shopping union, of course, was totally opposed to trading on ANZAC Day; we now note they support it. We are not opposed to the Easter Sunday trading proposed by the government, or indeed ANZAC Day trading after midday.

The opposition supports those principles, but we are opposed to the issue of bringing in the two half-day public holidays, and the reason we are opposed to that is because that matter will impose a significant cost to the business community, and we think it is an unfair cost. There is nothing fair about saying to a business in Peterborough, Jamestown, Berri, Renmark or any of the other regional areas, 'You have to pay a penalty rate of 250 per cent on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve so that people can shop in Adelaide.' It makes no sense; there is absolutely no policy connect between those two.

I will just reinforce the point: if the government wants to pay police, nurses, and others in those industries that provide 24-hour care, at any time in the last 10 years, the government could have said to those employees of the government, 'We want to up your rate to pay you public holiday rates on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.' This government has not done that, and it has nothing to do with shopping in the city. The fact that a police officer has to work at Stirling, Blackwood, Gawler or Mount Gambier on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve has absolutely nothing to do with whether people can shop in the CBD; there is a total disconnect.

Everyone knows—the Police Association, the police officers themselves, and the government—that when police wages are negotiated, those issues (when they work, the hours they work, the shifts they work, and the days they work) are taken into consideration as part of the enterprise bargaining negotiations, and there have been adjustments to their enterprise bargaining agreements over the years to take into consideration those particular issues. Just as teachers get more holidays than some other professions, each award reflects that industry's conditions that have been built up over many periods.

We do not believe that the business community has been properly consulted on this matter. We think that the impact is far broader than the government expects. I am not going to stand up and read out every letter from every industry association, but it is crystal clear that the Hotels Association opposes this, the Aged Care Association opposes this, the restaurant and catering association opposes this, the printing industry opposes this and the Motor Trade Association opposes this, and they all oppose it on the basis that there is no connection between imposing extra costs onto their business and the holiday and the shopping in Rundle Mall.

You can have shopping in Rundle Mall without imposing those costs on the business; and the matter of retail wages, etc., as we all know, is dealt with through the appropriate act at the time. Just an example of an industry you would not think would be concerned about shop trading in the city is the printing industry, but it writes to the opposition, saying:

I write to you on behalf of our membership to express our grave concerns regarding the announcement of the Government's intention to introduce two half-day public holidays on Christmas and New Year's Eve.

Primarily, our concerns relate to the view that certain decisions of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, as it was then known, may result in unintended consequences to all South Australian businesses should the proposal be gazetted.

If our interpretation of these decisions is correct, it can be seen that employees, who would not ordinarily work during the hours 5:00pm [to midnight] on the abovementioned days, may be considered disadvantaged by the proposed public holidays.

Therefore, this would potentially result in South Australian businesses, including those of our membership, being required to make additional payments or credit additional hours to annual leave in lieu of those public holidays so as to fill their obligations under the various federal industrial instruments.

I have written to the Premier to seek clarification as to the intention of the government regarding the impact these public holidays may have and specifically the economic costs to business, including our members.

He then wanted an opportunity to meet, which we did. That was from Peter Mansfield, the State Manager of the Printing Industries Association. What he is concerned about is the fact that, if the holiday falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, and then, because the printing industry was not working that particular day, the entitlement then falls due on the Monday—and the Minister for Small Business nods—and so the business community (in this case the printers, who might have a job to do from 5pm on; printers often work odd hours because of deadlines and time lines) then incurs public holiday costs because of the public holiday, that is, the Christmas Eve/New Year's Eve falling on the Saturday or the Sunday.

Now, we all know that is how public holidays work. If the public holiday falls on the weekend, then the wage structure flows over to the Monday. Then we get another letter from just a small printer, a one-off printer, who is no doubt a member of the association, but this explains his circumstance. He says:

If this Bill becomes law it appears that all of my staff, whether they usually work these hours or not—

that is, usually work their five to midnight shift—

will be entitled to paid time off in lieu for these additional public holidays, consistent with every other public holiday.

And this is the example—and there are many of them—where the consequence of making them half public holidays flows onto so many other areas. In a time when our state economy is struggling on so many fronts, why would the government want to be putting in extra costs onto small business? To the Liberal Party it simply makes no sense to impose more costs on the small business sector just so that people can shop in the CBD of Adelaide. It simply makes no sense.

We will be opposing the issue of public holidays. There are amendments on the way, Premier, to delete the public holiday provisions. We are quite happy with shop trading hours reform in regard to hours, but we are not going to accept the imposition of the public holiday rates onto businesses from 5pm to midnight on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.

The government has not made out an argument as to why a small business anywhere else in the state outside of Rundle Mall or the central business district to which this act is going to apply—in simple terms, Rundle Mall—should have to pay penalty rates for extra public holidays so people can shop in the mall. The government will try to say that it is all about the workers and that the workers deserve it. The Liberal Party believes the workers are entitled to fair compensation for their work, and there is a system in place to do that. It is called the industrial relations system, and you guys nationalised it.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: No, I think John Howard did actually.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, he didn't actually. Your government moved the legislation to transfer it over, Jay. Premier, you should know that.

Mr Marshall: The library can do you a paper on it.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, that's right. The library can do you a paper on it, Jay. We all know that there is a system to deal with industrial relations matters: it is called the industrial relations system. So, if the government wants to go through the process of changing it, they can use that system, and people's wages are ultimately dictated by that system. The police go and argue their case that they work shiftwork, odd hours and that there is a high level of danger. There is a whole range of things they argue, and the Industrial Relations Commission makes a judgement. The education system took the government to the commission to resolve a whole range of issues, and the system decided what the terms and conditions of employment would be. There is nothing new in that.

However, what is happening here is that the small business community is getting belted with an increased cost, and there is not one productivity gain. If you read the national media, it is saying that Australia's productivity has declined for a decade. In a national sense, this is minor, but it is an example of a lazy government. There is no productivity gain for the two extra public holidays.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, lazy. No productivity gain at all. The opposition welcomes the government's move—the principle at least—to further liberalising shop trading hours. We have argued for it for 10 years. The government has sat there bald faced telling us that it would be the end of the world if shop trading hours were somehow changed. For 10 years you essentially opposed reform. The only way you are prepared to get reform through is to whack—

The Hon. M.J. Wright: That's not true.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It is true.

The Hon. M.J. Wright: No, it's not. Who introduced Sunday trading?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Thank you.

The Hon. M.J. Wright: And who opposed it? You did.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The former minister for police interjects. As the former minister for police, he knows how the police EB system works, because the former minister for police, like me as a former minister for police, went through a wage negotiation with the police, and we all know how the system works. So, I am glad the former minister for police interjects. However, I do give the government credit and I will correct the record.

If the former minister for police had been here earlier he would have heard me say that this government has reformed Sunday trading, after Mike Rann, as opposition leader, wrote to small business saying that under no circumstances would it change Sunday trading. So, it did break that promise to small business. I still have the letters. It did break that promise to small business, and Sunday trading changed. I accept that. From that point on the government has said, 'No trading on public holidays; that will be the end of the world,' and here they are changing it significantly. The Liberal Party supports the principle of liberalising shop trading hours and enlivening the city.

Even on the issue of enlivening the city, just as you have come to the party on liberalising shop trading hours, you have come to the party on enlivening the city. John Olsen and Rob Lucas put out a policy before the 2002 election about the Riverbank precinct: your government then did nothing on it for many years. My colleague the member for Waite put out a policy about football in the city. You were giving $100 million to the SANFL to stay at West Lakes because that was the future of football but, suddenly, you thought, 'Crikey, they are going to liven up the city so we had better change our policy.'

So, on every single aspect of enlivening the city, you have followed the Liberal Party, in principle, to that position. There is not one proposal you can point to to say that was actually a new idea by the Labor Party. Extending the Convention Centre was a fantastic Liberal initiative. Football in the city was a Liberal initiative. Liberalising trading hours was a Liberal initiative. The Riverbank precinct was a Liberal initiative. On all these issues, the Labor Party has sat there and been dragged kicking and screaming.

But the Liberal Party is not going to support increased costs on small businesses that get absolutely nothing out of this. If you were running a business in Port Pirie, Port Lincoln, Renmark, or any of those areas—even in the suburbs, if you were running a cafe at Stirling, Blackwood, Marion or Gawler—why should you have to pay penalty rates so people can shop in Rundle Mall? It just has no connection. It makes no sense. What you are doing is imposing costs on small business, and if you have not got the message yet that small business is hurting out there then you are more out of touch than we think.

Pick up any set of economic figures—the housing starts, real estate sales, wages growth (which is the lowest in the nation), economic growth (which has gone backwards for two straight quarters), export figures (which have gone backwards for two straight quarters)—and there is a message in there for the government, and that is that small business is hurting. All you are going to do with the two public holidays is impose a greater cost on small businesses. They are the great employers of the state. There are 110,000 small businesses and only 6,000 of them trade interstate: 104,000 of them are single state businesses, so they are butchers, bakers candlestick makers. They are mums and dads trying to make a living.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You wouldn't give them 24-hour trading.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What they are going to do—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You won't give them 24-hour trading.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Sorry?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Be honest. Go out and tell them you wouldn't give those mums and dads 24-hour trading.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will not shout at each other across the floor.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Madam Speaker, the poor old Minister for Small Business doesn't understand his government's own policy.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It might go off one day, Tom.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So that the Minister for Small Business is clear, under his government, all of regional South Australia is totally deregulated.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: It is metropolitan Adelaide.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Do you care about the regions? It is true to say that in metropolitan Adelaide, Monday to Friday, the government's policy is they can trade from 12.01am to 9pm. You can trade 21 hours a day in Adelaide.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Minister for Small Business rants and raves about trading hours. Already they can trade 21 hours. The reality is they do not, because there is no money. The fact that they can trade 21 hours on Monday to Friday means we do not need a public holiday on any of those days. Just as you are home in bed, probably, at 11 o'clock on a Wednesday or Thursday night, people are out working, but they did not bring in a public holiday for that. The Liberal Party has faith in the industrial relations system to deliver fair outcomes for wages for those who work—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: That's why you supported WorkChoices. You had such faith in the system you supported WorkChoices.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, not at all. The poor old minister is upset because he realises he is held here by his own government's policy. Small business is in trouble in the state and all you have delivered is a bureaucrat.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You're on the wrong side of this argument.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Oh, really? We'll see.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: We'll see.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: We'll see. The reality is we have made our decision. The Liberal Party is going to stand firmly in support of the small business community. We do not see any need for two half-day public holidays to achieve the extra trading in Rundle Mall. We think the extra trading in Rundle Mall can be achieved without the increase in cost on small business throughout the state.

I just want to reinforce one final point. I think it is interesting—and it says something about the SDA—that they all sent us these ANZAC Day cards last year saying, 'Whatever you do, don't touch ANZAC Day trading.' I remember writing letters back to various people suggesting why the SDA might be doing that. And here we are, 12 months later, and the SDA has changed its position. It has changed its position because the Premier needs a policy to sell. The Premier needs a policy.

I agree with the business groups that are opposed to this. I think it is a deal that does not need to be done to get trading in the city. They describe it as a 'pig of a deal'. I think many small businesses think it is a terrible deal. Maybe we are here because, as Michael O'Brien, the Minister for Finance, said on radio he was the only one who had run a business on that side of the house, which was an interesting observation by one of their own ministers. There is not any business group outside of the Rundle Mall precinct—the precinct that is going to get the extra shopping—that I have seen that supports this, because they—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Business SA.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: They are not a business; they are a lobby group.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: They are the largest business organisation in Australia.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I meant a trading business—I am sorry—a for-profit business. The reality is that Business SA has made their view known. I understand that they have made their decision. All the industry groups separate to Business SA have essentially opposed it. We have listened the argument from both sides.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In fairness to the Premier, he mentions—

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, no; he mentions the food retailing group—the Independent Grocers group. It is fair to say they support the government's position. I understand that, but my view (certainly from the feedback to the opposition) is that the majority of small business groups totally oppose it. This is an example, in our view, of a government that is out of touch with small business. The reality is this will hurt small business, this will hurt jobs, and there is simply no justification for it—not one productivity reform out of the public holiday cost. So, the reality—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: They get to trade.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Well, they get to trade. It may have escaped the small business minister's—

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: They get to trade. The cafes in Port Lincoln, the cafes in Port Pirie and the hotels in the regional areas are already trading. Come out with me New Year's Eve, and I will take you to all the pubs and clubs that are already trading. What you have done is said that, 'Even though you are already trading, we are just going to increase your costs with a loading of 250 per cent.' 'Thanks for nothing. How lucky are we? We can do what we have always done—trade on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve—and for absolutely no reason you are going to clobber us with a 250 per cent penalty rate.' Where is the benefit to them?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: What do they get for your deregulated trading hours?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: They don't get 250 per cent loading. They get choices as to whether they open, just as they do under your policy. Minister, I do not think you understand your policy. When the shops are already open in the city from 12.01am to nine at night, those shops have a choice whether they open. A lot of them do not because it is simply not profitable, and we understand that. Do not criticise the opposition for saying that a shopkeeper should get choice; under your policy they do get choice. Of course they get choice; you have them open 21 hours a day. They can open 21 hours a day.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Twenty-one hours a day and they do not open. You are all over the place. The reality is simply this: the Liberal Party will not support the two half-day public holidays. We will not support them. We are not going to impose those extra costs on the South Australian community. To the argument about the police, the nurses, etc., we say that those matters are properly dealt with, as they have been for 100 years, through the industrial relations system and the wage negotiations. We all know that those industries that work odd hours have different leave entitlements and different conditions from the nine to five workers for that very reason. We all know that in this place.

The Hon. R.B. Such: They get extra holidays.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Fisher says they get extra holidays. That is the case; that would be an example of exactly what I am talking about. The proper place for wage setting is through the industrial relations system, not through an act of parliament. If the government wants to pay police and nurses more, it can do that any time it wants. It could have done it any time it wanted over the last 10 years. The police minister could have gone to the Treasury in bilaterals and said, 'Treasurer, I think the police deserve an increase in pay to penalty rates on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.'

The government could have agreed to that if it wanted to and written to the police saying, 'Congratulations. We have given you that money.' It has not done it; not in 10 years. Why is that? Because we all know that it is dealt with through enterprise bargaining and wage negotiations. Why has the government not signed up with the nurses in the last 10 years and said, 'Here you are: we will give you more money.' The reason it has not done it is it knows, we know, and everyone in South Australia knows, that that is dealt with through the wage negotiations and the industrial relations system.

Now that the government wants to open up Rundle Mall for trading, all of a sudden they are brought into the argument for political reasons. For political reasons that argument is brought in. We believe that the appropriate place for those negotiations is through the wage setting arrangements of government and ultimately through the Industrial Relations Commission if there is a dispute. For 10 years this government could have done it and has not done it. I think we can all see what is happening in this particular bill.

We will be moving amendments to delete the provisions that bring in the extra half-day public holidays. We will support the issue of trading on the afternoon of ANZAC Day from midday on. It is something we have advocated for eight or nine years, so we are pleased that the Labor Party has come to our position on that particular issue, in principle at least. We will support the issue of Easter Sunday trading.

There are a couple of other minor issues in the bill. We have debated shop trading hours three or four times in the last 10 years, if I recall, and the government has never moved to tidy up the red tape that is in the bill, but it has decided to do that in relation to exemptions. We welcome its finally dealing with the red tape that is in the legislation and we will certainly support the issues dealing with red tape reduction in regard to exemptions. We will also support the deletion of some obsolete provisions to tidy up the act. The main issue that we are opposing is the introduction of the two public holidays.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (11:44): I suppose the real question that comes to mind with the Liberal Party's opposition is: why not pay workers for working Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve; why not? What is the objection to paying people who are taken away from their families on the most important days of the year socially, when they are forced to work? The idea is that when you give your labour you are giving up your time, the most valuable asset that you have. You give your labour in return for a pay, for a salary, for what you are worth. The Liberal Party is telling the people of South Australia that those who work on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve are not worth penalty rates, they are not worth public holiday pay, that time away from their family is not important.

Well, I wonder if on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve the member for Norwood will be at his electorate office waiting for the phone to ring, working. I wonder if he will be there. I bet he won't. I bet the shadow minister for small business will be out at some party or will be spending time with his family; I bet he will. I wonder what he would say to all those traders on The Parade about why their employees should not receive penalty rates while they are away from their families.

An honourable member: They don't have to work.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They don't have to work. I represented retail workers in the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association before I entered parliament and I can tell members that it is very difficult for young, casual employees to turn down work when they are offered it. The nature of the work means that they will find someone else, so unless you work extended trading hours you do not get a job.

The Liberal Party has a policy of total deregulation of trading hours. I grew up in a small business. My parents owned three small businesses in their lives and our house was mortgaged to pay for the business, so I know what it is like to live in a household that was mortgaged to make a business run. If the business did not make money we lost our home. I know the stress, I know the feeling of anxiety, I know what it is like to be in a business, and I know what it is like to have a family-run business that lives and dies on its own retail figures. I know what it is like.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I didn't work for the guy who risked the money; I lived in it. I didn't get hired to work for it and I didn't inherit it from my daddy, either. The truth is that small businesses are now facing the prospect of the party that used to represent them giving them 24-hour deregulated trading hours. How is that going to make newsagents feel? How is that going to make drycleaners feel? How is that going to make motor traders feel? How is that going to make them feel?

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That's right; don't talk about your policies because it will expose you for what you are—frauds. The member for Davenport is a very articulate and good salesman. He is one of the few people who always gets up and makes an argument; whether he believes in it or not he makes an argument. I remember in 1994, when I was an organiser with the SDA, being very surprised at how admirable it was to see the member for Davenport stand up against trading hours expansion, stand up against deregulation of trading hours. He came out and stood on the steps of Parliament House with Steve Condous and presented a petition of 50,000 South Australians who were opposed to the then Brown-Olsen government's plan—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You didn't stand on the steps of Parliament House? I withdraw that. However, he supported—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Steve Condous voted for it too, you know.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He ratted on us, but there was always a risk with Steve Condous. The member for Davenport once had a view—because he comes from a small business background, he knows what deregulated trading hours do to small businesses—and back then, just in his first few years of parliament when he got elected in 1993, he still remembered his base, and did not want totally deregulated trading hours. The Liberal Party has worn him down. After, I think, 16 or 17 or 20 years of membership, the dark forces at work within the Liberal Party—that is, the big business interests, the landlords, the ones who want totally deregulated trading hours—have worn him down. Why do they want totally deregulated trading hours? Why do they want 24-hour trading? Because they want market share for their mates. They want to destroy small businesses, they want to destroy the mum-and-dad investors who are out there trying to carve a niche for themselves on days when the big boys are closed.

I remember just after the last election hearing the member for Adelaide on radio, talking about the inconvenience of having shops closed on public holidays in the city. She said there was traffic congestion near an IGA, where the car park was full, because people were choosing to shop there because Woolworths and Coles were closed.

Ms Sanderson: That is rubbish! I didn't say that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have the transcripts.

Ms Sanderson interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay; that's interesting. The member for Adelaide says she didn't say that. Well, I will provide the transcripts later on. I was surprised that a member of the Liberal Party would be upset that an IGA was doing well on a public holiday when Coles and Woolworths were closed. Why would she be upset?

The cost pressures on South Australians are increasing. We need diversity in our small businesses. We need independent retailers to survive. If we allow multinational companies to get a market share, once they achieve that market share they will increase their prices, because there will be no competition.

It is important to preserve and protect those small retailers—to protect the small boutiques, to protect those small news agencies, to protect those chicken shops, snack bars and delis that are open when the big boys are closed. But there is only one side of parliament that stands up for those small mum-and-dad businesses, and that is the Australian Labor Party.

The Liberal Party is the party of totally deregulated trading hours. What comes with total deregulation under the system the member for Davenport talked about? What comes next is no penalty rates—normal hours of trade. Total deregulation means normal hours of trade. What he wants is Coles and Woolworths to be open 24 hours a day, if they choose, and not pay their employees penalty rates.

They are fundamentally opposed to paying employees penalty rates. Why? Why are they opposed to employees getting penalty rates when they give up their labour at hours that are socially difficult: New Year's Eve, Easter, ANZAC Day, Christmas? Why are they so opposed to it? The truth is that the Liberal Party have always been on the side of the employers, never the employees. I was recently in Bunnings.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry? I was in Bunnings.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Their hours are deregulated.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Not as far as you want them to be deregulated. You want them to have 24-hour trading. I was in a line-up—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Bunnings are open at three in the morning.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, you want total deregulation. The world the Liberal Party wants is 24-hour trading. It is in the policy. It is your policy: total deregulation of trading hours. Don't pretend it is not: it is. You want to be able to see anyone who chooses to open at any time to be open. You want stores on The Parade to be open 24 hours a day.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left, you will have an opportunity to speak.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Morphett wants the shops on Jetty Road to be open 24 hours a day. Go to those small mum-and-dad shops and tell them what your policy is. You won't. I was in the line.

An honourable member: What were you doing there?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I was buying paint, actually. There was a gentleman who owned a restaurant and he was talking to me about the public holiday for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. He was giving me his reasoning about why he thought it would be a bad thing, and I turned to him and said, 'Look, the truth is we are the Labor Party. If we are going to ask someone to give up their time and labour when they would be spending it with their family, we want them to be compensated accordingly.' That is who we are. It is in our DNA. To ask us to change that is improbable, because we will not do it. We are the party of working South Australians.

There is a price for doing business, and the Liberal Party wants to decrease that price, not on the businesses but on the employees. So, there is a fundamental choice here between the employees and the owners. What we are saying is we want a vibrant city. We want a city that is open on Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve and public holidays, but we say there is a price for that, and the price of giving up your time on those days should be well compensated.

We are not going to change our DNA. The Liberal Party has, because the member for Davenport argued quite passionately in this house against Sunday trading, and now he is advocating total deregulation of the market—complete deregulation. With that comes—

Mr Marshall: What's that got to do with the bill in the house?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It has everything to do with the bill in the house, because right now there is a choice in our community, and the choice is this: 24-hour deregulated trading hours—that is, every small business in this state exposed to your deregulated market—versus our compensating employees for working on those days and just confining it to the CBD, because all South Australians know and accept that the CBD should be open. That is the difference. You would expose every mum-and-dad small business to the horrors of the free market—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It fascinates me that the shadow—

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Davenport!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —minister for small business is prepared to go and argue 24-hour deregulated trading hours to newsagents. How do they feel about it? It surprises me that he is prepared to go and argue to those small delis and snack bars—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It won't increase their costs—24-hour deregulated trading will not increase their costs? So shops opening longer for the same amount of turnover will not have increased costs. That is the argument from the member for Norwood: open longer, same turnover; it will not increase costs. He shakes his head.

An honourable member: Speak to motor traders about that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Motor traders—what the hell is all this about having car yards open 24 hours a day in the brave new world of the member for Davenport? I wonder whether his passion for 24-hour deregulated trading hours extends to pokie machines. I wonder whether this arrangement between the AHA and the Liberal Party does not have further consequences on the successful election of a Redmond, Marshall, Hamilton Smith or—take your pick—

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Koutsantonis.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, mate, they will not elect me. I wonder whether their passion for deregulated trading hours extends to pokie machines. Perhaps this is something that has not been canvassed in the public arena just yet, but I wonder whether it will be now. This party makes no apologies for wanting a vibrant city. A vibrant city is important to the future prosperity of this state.

I also wonder about all those regional people that the member for Davenport was talking about who are already working on public holidays in a totally deregulated market. I wonder how they feel about trading hours in the CBD. I suspect that he is perhaps not as accurate in his views, and I wonder whether it is really not them who are disconnected from their base compared to us.

I have spoken to people in small businesses, and I freely make the admission that there are very powerful forces working against this bill on the basis of employees' pay, not on the principle of extended trading. So, what we are really arguing about here is how we pay employees. However, I really wonder whether the Liberal Party has actually spoken to small businesses, really small businesses. I wonder whether they have walked into any boutique on The Parade and asked, 'How do you feel about completely deregulating trading hours?'

Mr Marshall: That's not what the bill is about. The bill is about legal issues and costs.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Right, okay, don't bring up the alternative to this bill. If you bring up the alternative to this bill, it may embarrass the Liberal Party. The people of South Australia should be fully aware that the Liberal Party will extend trading hours to 24 hours, with no penalty rates. That is what they want: no penalty rates; but, of course, members opposite will not be working those hours: they will be quite comfortably at home. I wonder whether your electorate offices will be open 24 hours a day. You want 24-hour trading for Coles and Woolworths—

Mr Pisoni: Will you fund them to be open 24 hours a day? I'll be there.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You will be there, will you?

Mr Pisoni: Will you fund them for more staff?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I wonder then—if we are talking about funding—why they are opposed to penalty rates for those hours. Why would you be opposed? Why shouldn't a plumber who is called out on New Year's Eve get a penalty added to their wages for having to work on that night? The Liberal Party talks about productivity: it wants to extend trading hours to the same amount of turnover and put people into competition with businesses that have greater purchasing power than themselves; it wants to decrease the cost on larger corporations, like Woolworths and Coles, by abolishing penalty rates. It is in the Liberal Party's DNA to pay workers less; it is in our DNA to protect them. This is good for the city of Adelaide and I urge members to support it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (12:00): It is always a great pleasure to follow the eloquent member for West Torrens. I always find his debates highly intellectual. He bounces from point to point with great sophistication and never repeats himself. He is always moving with grace and acuity from one grand idea to the next, inspiring all in the chamber with his ability to develop his case. That is why I always find it a pleasure to follow on from him when he is speaking.

There are some things about this bill that I really like: great freedom to shop and to open your shop in the CBD, I think, along with all of my colleagues on this side, is a fine goal. There are some things in this bill that I really love and there are some things that are absolutely horrid. My honourable friend the member for Davenport has thoroughly examined those issues point by point.

There are some core principles in this bill. One, is a desire by this house to liven up the city of Adelaide, to create new opportunities, to bring new life to the city, to bring shoppers in, to enable shops to open and to enable businesses to thrive. There are some very good principles in this bill, principles that all members of this house would support. There are also some very challenging principles involved in this bill, which strike to the issues addressed in the bill under part 3: the penalty rate regime and the introduction of new public holidays, which we simply do not need and cannot afford.

It was interesting to see this policy announced by the government, the union movement and Business SA together. It was interesting to see the Labor government so fulsomely embraced, not only by the union movement but by Business SA. It had all the hallmarks of the joint announcement that it was. It sent a signal that many in the business community did not want to hear. I will come back to that point later.

The main focus of opposition to this measure has to do with the declaration of two new public holidays on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve—public holidays we do not need—and the confluent penalty rate implications. There are businesses in my electorate of Waite for whom this, if it was to become law, would result in many thousands of dollars of additional impost through the wage packet. These are small businesses that, frankly, cannot afford it. Some of them have said to me that they will not open on New Year's Eve anymore, it will not be viable. Some of them have said that they will struggle to break even. This has serious implications for hotels and restaurants, for a lot of venues on New Year's Eve, let alone aged care centres and other places of employment where they cannot escape having to have employees on duty on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. It is a rotten proposition to create these two new public holidays, they will cost business a fortune.

Quite apart from that—Labor likes to throw the term 'modernisation' around when it talks about industrial relations—I think there is a case for the Labor Party to modernise its thinking about penalty rates and regimes. There seems to be this feeling in the Labor Party that no-one wants to work other than from nine to five—that mum and dad are home with the kids and the dog and that the only employees in the world nowadays are mums and dads who want to rush home to their children, etc., and be gone by five, and therefore we need penalty rate regimes in the evenings, on weekends and any time which does not comply with this sort of 1930s thinking which is evident from the state Labor Party.

It may startle the state Labor Party to know that young employees today tend to work a pretty well 24-hours, seven-days-a-week lifestyle. It might startle the Labor Party to know that a lot of them like to work or stay out late and sleep in the morning. They quite like a roster that might have them starting mid-afternoon and working into the evenings—that that is the lifestyle they want to live.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The Premier chips in. Obviously, the Premier has a big night on Christmas Eve, but it might startle him to know that some young people might not mind working on Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve. In fact, they might actually find working on New Year's Eve to be quite a good party. Go and talk to some of them, particularly the ones working in restaurants and hotels; for a lot of them, it is their opportunity to be involved in the big night out. It is not an impost on everybody; this is the point I am making.

Employers are not silly when they work out their rosters. When they work out their rosters, I am sure that what they do is they ask people who would like to work on New Year's Eve or Christmas Eve. Quite often, you find that, as an employer (there a couple of us over this side who have been employers. I do not know whether there are too many at all over on the other side who have ever paid a wage packet in their life), you will sit down and talk to your employees and ask them when they would like to work and, it is funny the answer that you get: a lot of them like working a variety of shifts at a variety of times.

The problem you are trying to fix probably does not need fixing, by and large, because you would probably find that most people working on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve, in my estimation, are probably happy to do so and, if they really have a personal family reason not to be working on Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve, I am sure they would make that point to their employer, and most sensible employers would find a way to bring on another employee to meet that occasion. Employers are not silly; they depend on their relationship with their employees or they would not have a business.

So, you are sort of solving a problem, in my view, that does not exist. This whole concept that employees are being dragged in ball and chains, with whips, to work on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve against their will and that we need to solve it by creating two new public holidays is something that you have just dreamt up. You are solving a problem that does not exist.

What you are doing is putting an impost on businesses from the West Coast to the South-East, from the north of the state to the south, right across the CBD, costing small businesses, whether they be a hotel, pub, aged-care centre or mechanic's shop, you name it, whatever you like. It is simply a problem that does not need solving. It demonstrates in large helpings Labor's inability to get it in regard to the way in which small business works and, in particular, it demonstrates Labor's absolute failure to understand that all employers are not evil spirits, that employers actually understand one fundamental thing, that is, without a happy workforce and happy employees, they do not have a business—and they tend to work these things out.

You ask most employees—and I have because I used to have 127 of them—whether they would rather have penalty rates or an overall increase in their wage for the week. A lot of them will tell you that they would rather have an overall increase so that they get more per hour whenever they work and so that favourites are not played with who gets the overtime and who gets the extra hours, because a lot of people are quite happy to queue up, which is another issue. You will always find people prepared to work out of hours if there is extra money involved, particularly—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, particularly the single people, which makes the point that there will always be volunteers There is already extra money involved for working out of hours in most cases in most awards. You want to take what is already a gold-plated system and platinum plate it, and you want the taxpayers and employers to pay the millions that it will involve. It is just utter nonsense. That is why we will not be supporting that section of part 3; that is, because we do not need it. But I have to say, getting back to this issue of Business SA, the union movement and the Labor Party announcing this together—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: 'Well, who's left?' the Premier says. Well, clearly the Premier's choice: he wants to deal with Business SA. I think one of the fundamental issues arising from this entire debate has been the gap it has opened up in the business community in this state. What you have done is divide, not unite. What you have done is driven a stake between the business community in this state. I attended an AHA lunch where the AHA made its views on Business SA very, very clear to a very large gathering in terms of, 'They've never represented us, they never will represent us and what they have done is wrong on a number of counts.' That has been echoed by other industry associations to the point that a new alliance has formed—a new business grouping has formed—that is in complete dispute with Business SA on this issue.

You have divided; you have not united. I have to give you credit because that is what you wanted to do. You have got the people you prefer to negotiate with to agree with you. For others in the business community who saw that on TV they felt that the business group, Business SA, was part of the Labor-union team. That is what they perceived it to be and they have said that publicly.

I think there is an issue there for Business SA to address, and it is a very significant issue arising from this entire debate. I have difficulty saying this because I used to be a member of that body and I have great respect for it. I used to be on the congress of the chamber. Members of Business SA (who are paying a lot of money to be members of Business SA) must be wondering whether they should focus on the MTA, the AHA or their industry association as their first and principal membership and leave it to that industry association to argue their case, because they feel deserted by Business SA. That is a very significant outcome of this entire matter and there is a message there for the board of Business SA. Clearly, they are in conflict with a significant number of business associations who do not agree with them.

I find this very, very distressing because I have friends in all these organisations. Business SA and the industry associations all do a fantastic job but they have been driven apart by you, by the Labor Party—very good for your political objectives. The union will get what it wants if this bill passes: two public holidays we don't need, at extraordinary cost to small business, and Business SA will have its stamp all over it, and they will wear that for years to come. They will wear that for years to come.

There is a real question now—for small business and even for medium enterprises—where do you want to place your business membership? Do you want to place it with Business SA or do want to put your money, your effort and your support behind your industry association? That is an outcome of this debate which I think is very sad, because you have put those businesses in this position.

I now move to the point of Easter Sunday. I want to express my personal view on this. As you have heard, we will not be opposing the government's initiative on this particular bill, but I find it very interesting that a Labor government has for the first time brought forward a piece of legislation that enables trading on the holiest day in the Christian calendar: Easter Sunday.

I wonder whether the member for West Torrens has run that past Archbishop Nikandros of Dorylaion and the Greek Orthodox community. I wonder if the government has consulted with the primates and leaders of our churches about that decision, because I find it a very interesting decision. It will not be lost in the seat of Newland, it will not be lost in the seat of Mawson, and it will not be lost in a number of marginal seats that a Labor government has brought into this chamber the entire concept of allowing trading on Easter Sunday, so it is going to be very, very interesting as that unfolds.

I hope that you have consulted with the churches. For a lot of you it may not matter a hoot, but for a lot of the workers you claim to represent it will matter, and I am simply expressing my personal view.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, I know, Premier, you wouldn't care, but I do, and I am expressing my personal point of view. I am making that point, and it is a point worth noting. I want to get back to the issue of the future.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I will get back to the issue of the future. As the member for Davenport outlined, the government has done a very good job of copying Liberal initiatives in regard to City West, the expansion of the Convention Centre, the sudden change of heart about moving football into the city, and the new focus we heard from the Governor during the recent opening of parliament about the city and re-enlivening the city. All of that is good. It was great that they finally realised that we were on the right ticket and they joined it, because previously they were talking a different language.

For that reason the part of the bill I do like about enabling the CBD shops to open on these public holidays so mentioned will be very good as part of that overall strategy. That part of the vision is good, but there is another part of the vision that needs to be embraced. The government needs to get its costs under control, and it needs to free up the business community to create jobs for the future. The only way government will be able to do that is to do what most businesses do, and that is review its own spending arrangements.

This bill proposes to add millions of dollars to the government's already bloated wages bill by the declaration of two new public holidays, which will have to be funded by the taxpayers. That is money that will come away from schools, hospitals, disability services and all those things, and it will have to go into paying extra wages for our hardworking public servants for these two new public holidays. I am saddened to see that money drawn away from hospitals and schools.

We need less spending from government so we can deliver the sort of tax reforms and cost savings to business they need to create new jobs, which should be your prime focus. So, along with my colleagues, I will oppose that section of the bill, which is terrible for small business and which seeks to impose two new holidays and the penalty rates that go with it, but I look forward to supporting those parts of the bill which enable the CBD to trade freely and for vibrancy and new life to be brought back into the parliament. With that I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (12:18): I wanted to say a few words in relation to this and, in particular, to make reference to some areas that are of particular significance to me, namely, areas relating to planning and to consumer affairs, both of which I think have a contribution to make in this debate. We are really here dealing with two settlements contending a problem that has been sitting around the place for a very long time, and that is the issue of shop trading hours and the liberalisation or otherwise of those shop trading hours.

What we are left with at present is this: the government has, as a result of conversations that have occurred between business, the union and the government, come to a settlement of an issue which has been a running sore for years and years and something that has been the subject of almost endless debate. I cannot remember a time in the time I have been in this parliament when this has not been a subject of debate or discussion.

The government settlement is something embodied in the legislation the Premier has brought into parliament, and that settlement I am confident will bring to an end once and for all further debate about this issue of deregulation of trading hours. The alternative position, which is the position that has been contended by the opposition, basically would see total deregulation of trading hours.

We need to look at both those positions and analyse them from the point of view of what, on balance, delivers the best outcome for South Australia. I would like to make a few remarks—again from the perspective of planning and consumer affairs—regarding the superior outcome delivered by the Premier's proposal.

First of all, in relation to planning can I say that the government and the Premier have made it very clear that we regard the revitalisation of the City of Adelaide as being the number one priority for the government. There is no doubt that changing the regime in the City of Adelaide for shopping is an important element in creating a vibrant city. That is not just from the point of view of the people who might live in or visit the city but also from the point of view of people visiting from interstate or overseas who might want to be able to have a place where they can go and shop and do the things they would expect to do in a major capital city anywhere in the world.

The 'vibrant city' policy that this government has and has embraced enthusiastically, and is continuing to push forward—and we will be in a position to say more about that in due course—is greatly complemented by these reforms, and so from that point of view it is something that I think needs to be endorsed and supported.

The second area that I do not really think has received enough attention in this debate is looking at it from the point of view of consumers. I am asking that we think not just about consumers in the more narrow sense that has been referred to by many of the contributions from the other side but about the consumers of South Australia generally. Let's make no mistake about what the issue here really is if you dig down.

Section 4(1)(d)(ii) and section 4(2) of the Shop Trading Hours Act are two provisions which, when taken together, are the Chinese wall that stands between Coles and Woolworths taking over the whole of South Australia as they virtually have done in New South Wales and elsewhere. People may not realise this, but I think in New South Wales the percentage of retail grocers which are independent of Coles and Woolies is 10 per cent or less because they do not have that Chinese wall.

Beneath that wall, protected by that wall, South Australia has a flourishing independent retail sector. Guess what that means? It means that consumers in South Australia have a choice—and not just consumers in South Australia but also small producers in South Australia. So, all those people who produce fruit and vegetables in South Australia do not have to deal with Coles and Woolies because 30 per cent of our market is not Coles and Woolies. They get the chance to deal with the IGAs, the Foodlands and all these other people of the world who are very important. As I said, they have about 30 per cent of the market in South Australia.

If we reduce that percentage, we not only deny our consumers in South Australia an independent choice—a South Australian owned and controlled choice, a choice that supports local growers, local farmers, local producers of fruit, vegetables, meat and every other product—but we hand control of the market in South Australia to Coles and Woolies. It is demonstrable that in South Australia there is more competition in this sector than there is anywhere else in Australia. Why? Because Coles and Woolies do not control it—not yet.

I am speaking here on behalf of South Australian consumers; I am speaking here on behalf of the independent retailers in South Australia who employ a lot of South Australians; I am speaking here on behalf of all South Australian consumers who enjoy the choice they get from being able to go to independent retailers to buy their groceries; and I am speaking on behalf of all the small producers out there, the small farmers—many of whom I know live in and around your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker. All those people have a choice as to where they sell their products. They do not have to accept the dictates of the person with the cheque book from Coles or Woolies.

People in this room might be a little bit surprised to know that recent figures suggest, I am reliably informed, that 42¢ in every dollar spent in Australia today is spent in Coles and Woolies—42¢ in every dollar—and South Australia is a standout for being the place where there is the lowest market penetration of Coles and Woolies. That is in spite of the fact that they are out there with all of these ancillary deals where you go to their liquor shops or petrol stations and that is all part of the quid pro quo they get to bring people into their stores. Do not misunderstand me: Coles and Woolies do a good job, but in any marketplace that sort of market dominance is dangerous. It is dangerous for consumers, dangerous for producers, and it is not good for business in the long term.

In South Australia we have a healthy independent retail sector. As I said, the Chinese wall that protects those people from oblivion, all of their employees from oblivion and all of the producers that they buy their products from in South Australia from a complete dictate in terms of what prices they can get for their goods, that Chinese wall is in this act. We want to keep that there, we want to defend the independent retail sector in South Australia. We are not in favour of wholesale deregulation.

I add one other point here as a matter of interest. If you doubt what I am saying is the case, I invite people to consider, in spite of Coles and Woolies having their own petrol stations here in South Australia, why is it that the retail price of fuel in South Australia (in the metropolitan area, in particular) is generally lower than it is in Melbourne and Sydney? Why is that? It is not because we have a refinery here and you do not have to transport it. I wonder what it might be. Could it be that we have a single very large third-party independent player in the retail fuel market here? Could that be the reason? I think that is the reason, so there you have another market sector where South Australia again, because of good fortune in that case probably, has a third force in the market—not just Coles, not just Woolies but a third force in the market—and that has exerted competitive pressure in the market and—

Mr Marshall: Fuel's completely deregulated. Look at the trading hours—24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am attempting to help the honourable member understand a concept called competition and the implications of having competition in the marketplace. So, I return to my original two points. Number one, from the point of view of the vitality of the city, I say this is an important part of a mosaic of measures this government is taking to add to the vitality of the city of Adelaide, and it should be endorsed and supported as such, particularly by the member for Adelaide whose constituents are major beneficiaries of this. Secondly, from the point of view of consumers in South Australia, we are not talking about what the government offers or nothing.

Let's understand exactly what the alternative is. The alternative is a destruction of the independent retail sector in South Australia which presently, as I have said before, is sheltered by very important provisions in this legislation which protect it from the predations of dominant market players around the country. That is the choice: one package which has the consent of the government, business and the trade union predominantly involved in this area, and another one which will put people out of work, damage consumer choice and make it more difficult for local producers to get a fair price for their product. The obvious answer to how one should proceed with this one is clear, and I hope that all members in both chambers will support the proposals as put forward by the Premier.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:29): Eleven minutes from the Deputy Premier and there was not one attempt to defend the imposition of two new public holidays as part of this bill. That is the issue that the Liberal Party has with this bill: it is the fact that we have a Labor Party being driven by the shoppies union (the most powerful union in this state) to implement an industrial relations change by using the shop trading act and the public holidays act, not going through the Industrial Relations Commission—obviously the federal Industrial Relations Commission in private employee situations and the state Industrial Relations Commission for public servants.

The fact is that employees, whether they work for big companies or small companies, whether they work for the private sector or the public sector, periodically have gone to the Industrial Relations Commission for changes to their award provisions of employment. In South Australia, businesses—whether they be large businesses or small businesses—have complied with the outcomes of the Industrial Relations Commission when it comes to terms and conditions of employment, salaries, bonuses, penalties and so forth.

Do not forget that many of the people who work shiftwork are compensated through additional holidays, annual leave, loadings to shiftwork. Those types of compensations are taken into account by the Industrial Relations commissioner when those submissions are put forward. I ask this house to consider how many times the many unions that have signed the government's pledge card in this legislation have, in their ambit claims or otherwise, put to the Industrial Relations Commission that they want to see double time and a half on New Year's Eve and on Christmas Eve.

If there are union representatives out there listening to this debate, I say to them: show us the submissions you have taken to the Industrial Relations Commission that have demanded double time and a half for your members for working on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve. I will be very interested in the answer. Let us talk about how disingenuous this whole trading hours debate is in the unions' push to squeeze more money from the small business sector in South Australia.

I will take you back to about this time last year when the shoppies union was circulating cards to members of parliament saying, 'Remember ANZAC Day and Easter are about courage, sacrifice and family—not shopping.' They were using the religious aspects of Easter and using the sacrifice of our fallen men for their own political purposes. Peter Malinauskas was even on radio saying that he had approval for this campaign from the RSL.

I happened to write to the RSL and asked them to clarify whether this was the case, and this is the response I got back from the RSL:

Hi David, I have spoken to Jock Statton, the State President, and he actually spoke to this guy—

Peter Malinauskas, I imagine they are talking about—

beforehand saying that the RSL is only interested in the fact that the ANZAC Commemoration Act is upheld and ANZAC Day is about respect not politics and should stay as such.

Not politics, but of course the shoppies union was very happy to get involved in the politics of Easter and ANZAC Day on that occasion. The response continues:

We have always had the opinion that any shops should not open their doors until after the ANZAC Day March has completed, to allow due respect to be paid to those who served, any stance outside of ANZAC Day is not the bailiwick of the RSL.

In other words, it is not within their jurisdiction and they are not interested in what happens outside of the ANZAC Day march, yet the secretary of the shoppies union, Peter Malinauskas, was on radio telling people that he had endorsement for this campaign to stop shopping on ANZAC Day from the RSL—an outrageous disgrace. That is how the shoppies union operates.

We know that this stance, all of a sudden, has changed. They received their thirty pieces of silver, and the shoppies union has decided that it is now alright to shop on ANZAC Day, because they worked out this deal with Business SA, which we have since learned is not representative of the small business community. I can vouch for that; I was a member of Business SA for a short time as a small business person, but then went on to join my association—the Furnishing Industry Association—where I got good representation on industrial and industry issues.

I think it is important to understand what we are seeing happening in the community at the moment; that is, we have a government that has handed over its industrial relations system for the private sector to the federal sphere and is trying, through an act of state parliament, to force an increased cost of business through introducing two additional public holidays in South Australia. As far as I am aware, no other state or jurisdiction in comparable countries has this on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve.

I was interested to hear the Premier on radio just last week saying that those people who are working on those days when we all like to have a nice time off should be rewarded for doing so. What about people who have lunch between 12 and two? Maybe restaurants should pay penalty rates during that time as well, because people are having a nice time during lunch and people have to work during lunch. So, with that ideology, perhaps we need to have restaurants paying penalty rates for those who work during lunch breaks.

It reminds me of some towns in Italy, where some local restaurants have signs up which say, 'Closed for lunch.' I think that is where this state is heading under Labor; this state is heading for a series of 'Closed for lunch' and 'Closed for business' signs happening all around the state because of the insistence that this government has to placate the shop assistants union.

We know that the Premier is here with the nod of Peter Malinauskas. The former premier Rann assured us that he would be here until 2014, but it was Peter Malinauskas who said, 'No, we want Jay Weatherill,' and so, of course, Mr Rann had to go. I think the problem that Mr Rann had, of course, was that he was in a position for so long that he actually forgot he did not run the show, that it was actually the shoppies union that ran the show.

To look at how grubby this deal is, you need to look at the way the shoppies union operates. I know this for a fact; I have had a personal first-hand experience of the access that they have to 15 and 16 year olds who start stacking shelves at Big W or Woolworths, with half an hour of compulsory access in front of a union representative from the shoppies union telling them that as a single stick they can be broken, but if they clamp together as a bunch of sticks, they will be saved from the evil employers who are trying to screw them for every cent they have.

Then, of course, they hand out the union cards to 15 and 16 year olds to sign before they have had a chance take it home and discuss it with their parents. There is so much intimidation for those kids who turn up to those induction nights at Coles and Woolworths. After they sit through this induction by the shoppies union, many of them feel that they have no choice but to sign up to join the shoppies union.

It gets even more interesting than that—and if I was a member of the left wing of the Labor Party, I would be very concerned about the way they count their membership. We know how important membership is, of course, for preselection and control of the State Governing Council of the Labor Party. The shoppies union will tell you it represents 20,000 or more members, but I just wonder how many of those members have paid union fees in recent times. How many of those casual members who work for a three-month block and have not worked for six months are still counted as members of the shoppies union, even though their fees are deducted when they are paid?

The casualised manner of the retail industry, particularly for part-time workers, is that you could very well be working for a week or two and then not work for several months; that has happened—I have had experiences through my children's friends where that has happened—and then you are called back again. You may very well decide that it is not for you, and that you are not going to work at Coles or Woolworths anymore and are going to do something else, but you are still getting your membership material in the mail one, two, or three years later. You are still counted as a member of the shoppies union so that the shoppies union can use you as a stick against the left wing of the Labor Party controlling the floor of the Labor Party congress whenever they meet. I am not sure how they describe their 'come-togethers', but, certainly, that is the experience that I have seen.

What is even more ironic is that we saw a Labor candidate at the last federal election whose family owned a junk-food company. I happen to know because people have approached me saying that the young kids who work at that fast-food company are told that they must clock off before they finish the till. I thought that was against the industrial law—

Members interjecting:

Mr PISONI: 'He' was a woman.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Unley, can you please get back to the subject.

Mr PISONI: This is all about industrial relations law—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you are straying from the actual subject. Also, I would appreciate it if you could address the chair, as you quite often remind other members to do.

Mr PISONI: Of course the Labor Party is all about what works for the Labor Party. The union movement is all about what works for the union movement. The union movement has seen an opportunity here to improve their profile in the public (because we do know, of course, that, in the private sector, union membership is down to about 17 per cent), but here they are dictating to our opponents—the government, the Labor Party—how it should be running its legislation.

It was Peter Malinauskas who said that this deal was a total deal: you lose the two extra public holidays in this deal and it is not going to happen. Well, there is a challenge for the leadership of Jay Weatherill, the Premier of South Australia. Is he going to take the direction of the parliament or is he going to take the direction of the shoppies union? It will be an interesting test as this is played out in the next week or so.

I think it is also interesting that we hear about Labor members continually popping up talking about conflicts of interest with anyone on our side of politics. We are seeing this happening in the Queensland election—conflicts of interest. Someone has got a business interest—conflict of interest. You cannot talk about a particular industry because you have a conflict of interest, yet the Labor Party is full of conflicts of interest. Every single member is a member of the unions that are backing this campaign. That is a conflict of interest.

Why is the union membership important? The union membership is important because it is related directly to their income, their preselections; that is why it is important to them, and what the Labor Party has put first and foremost in this bill is their loyalty to their union and their concern for their preselection. That is what this is all about; that is why they are doing what their unions are telling them to do. That is why they are doing what Peter Malinauskas is telling them to do. The Premier is doing what Peter Malinauskas is telling him to do, because the Premier owes him one. He has got to the top job in the state because Peter Malinauskas tapped Mike Rann on the shoulder.

That is exactly why we are here today, and that is why we are discussing the government's intention of including two more public holidays as part of this deal. Remember how concerned the shoppies union was for diggers last ANZAC Day. This ANZAC Day it is more than happy to have shopping on ANZAC Day because it has sold out, hoping to get additional penalty rates for its members. What is ironic about this whole situation is that the beneficiaries of this legislation will be city traders, but try to go shopping at 5 o'clock on New Year's Eve and on Christmas Eve. Rundle Mall is closed. Rundle Mall traders will not be paying the penalty rates, yet every other small business operating in its core business time on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve will be forced to pay the price of the shoppies union deal.

I think that we need to remind South Australians that this state has in fact been run by the shoppies union for 10 years; that is why we have not had public holiday trading in the city until now. I bet that Peter Malinauskas could not believe his luck with the generous deal he got out of Business SA, because I tell you what: it is an extraordinary cost to pay. Everybody else has to pay except those who are benefiting from it. Everybody else is paying for Rundle Mall being open on the public holidays that this bill covers.

We support the need to increase trading in the city. We support those aspects of the bill. What we do not support is the grubby deal that has been attached to this bill. You cannot attach what is, in effect, an industrial relations consequence to a bill to deal with public holidays and trading hours. They are two completely different issues. When the industrial relations commissioner considers a claim in the Industrial Relations Commission, they look at the big picture—the whole industry, the profession, the working hours and the nature of that business. Over the years, we have seen those industrial relations agreements evolve to take into account the fact that these employees do work unsociable hours and that they are rewarded for it.

My father, when he was at GMH for 35 years, always worked the afternoon shift because he got a loading. He wanted to work the afternoon shift because he got a loading, and he was happy to do that. That was part of his EBA, the negotiated agreement that Holdens had at the time.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

Mr PISONI: Or the award, as the member for Norwood reminds me. My father has been retired for a while now, so I think it would have been an award. That was fair enough. It was argued in the Industrial Relations Commission, and arguments were put forward as to why that should be the case. However, there were no arguments put forward by this government as to why small businesses, which are not getting any benefit whatsoever from the changes to shopping hours in the mall, should be paying heavy penalties on New Year's Eve and on Christmas Eve. We are still yet to be convinced as to how that is linked, other than the fact that Peter Malinauskas thought it was a good idea.

Ms BETTISON (Ramsay) (12:47): These new shop trading hours are set to reinvigorate the city centre under these major reforms. We heard the South Australian Governor talk in his opening of parliament that this is one of the seven priorities of the Labor government. A vibrant city is what we are aiming to create. We have heard, however, the member for Waite claim that a vibrant city has been Liberal ideas left, right and centre. It must be very frustrating for them not to be in government with these great ideas.

What I want to talk about is the fact that this is a way forward, and what we have seen here is real leadership in South Australia. This legislation is a package, and it is a package because it will settle once and for all this issue of shop trading deregulation. Let's talk about the people who support this bill: Drakes; Romeos; Adelaide City Council; United Voice; the Police Association; Business SA; the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation; the Transport Workers Union; Rundle Mall Management Authority; the Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union; the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association; the Australian Services Union; SA Unions; the Chapley Group; Globalize; Adelaide Central Plaza; and the Maras Group.

This is a package that has the broad support of a genuine coalition—not one of a narrow group of self-interested employer associations but one of employer groups, business organisations and businesses, local government, unions and people who share the same vision for the future of our city. When you are looking for leadership you have to make some difficult decisions. You have to be bold and you have to listen to people. Sometimes you have to compromise and sometimes you have to negotiate. I am pretty sure we will stand here at another time when Business SA does not agree with what the Labor government is doing.

Let us talk about some of the outcomes of this. These part public holidays will compensate workers who are working when others are enjoying themselves. The reforms are part of a package, and it is about fairness. One of the things I have not heard people on the other side talk about is some of the negotiations that came from this and some of the compromises that had to be done, and that is why we were able to go forward with the decision we have here.

The two additional part-day public holidays are legislated for. There will be no increase in the amount paid to casual bartenders on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve until 2015. From the start of 2015, the amount payable to casual bartenders will decrease by 25 per cent on Monday to Friday—that is a decrease of 25 per cent.

I see in the gallery Ian Horne from the Australian Hotels Association. I have not heard anyone from the other side of the house talk about there being a compromise here, and this takes leadership. You can't just accept that this is a deal where we all walk hand in hand and are happy and everyone has a win-win situation on every side. We win-win because we discussed it, debated it and found a way forward, as South Australians asked us to find a way forward.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder, it is very unusual for you to be so belligerent.

Ms BETTISON: Of course, what this bill puts forward is that from the start of 2015 the amount payable to casual bartenders will increase to 175 per cent on Sundays and 275 per cent on public holidays. I understand that there is a compromise here. What I want people to recognise is that there is compromise on both sides.

Often, when we go through these processes, we have a lot of employer organisations running scare campaigns with outrageous claims such as it will not be worth opening on New Year's Eve or Christmas Eve and it will cause businesses to close. Employers have used these arguments to complain about reforms such as minimum wage increases, universal superannuation, the GST, the Fair Work Act, the CPRS and OH&S harmonisation. The truth is that these reforms are needed and they were asked for by South Australians.

One of the key things we have seen from this is a support for South Australians about the fairness of this, and it is about listening to people and their need to spend time with family and their need to be recognised and compensated if that is not possible. A recent Newspoll survey showed that an overwhelming majority of South Australians support higher pay for workers on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. A massive 80.6 per cent of South Australians support higher rates of pay for people who work after 5pm on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. That means massive public support for these part-day holidays.

When you are in government you have to make some tough decisions, and this is one of those decisions that is made with support from those areas that perhaps predominantly would not support Labor Party policy or Labor government bills. I think this is a positive way forward for us to look to benefit the workers of South Australia, to the demands of a vibrant city and a way forward for the future.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:54): I will not take too long to get to the heart of this issue. We have heard a lot of talk here and, certainly, the Minister for Small Business alarmed me with the nonsense that he was spruiking. This is actually a pretty straightforward thing from our perspective. There is no demon, there is no-one running around trying to stop payment of penalty rates, and there is nobody trying to force people to get out of bed at midnight and go to jobs that they do not want to do.

We are just opposed to the two new half-day public holidays. That is the bottom line. I hear people in the media or here talking about all the dreadful things that the Liberal Party would like to do to workers throughout the state: it is absolute nonsense. We just support opening up the CBD so that the shop trading can be deregulated as proposed by this bill. We just oppose two additional public holidays because they would put an unfair burden on small business.

I am an ardent supporter of small business. I have run my own small businesses, I have worked exceptionally hard, and I have had a lot of staff. Do you know why I support small business? Because small business creates employment. There is nobody here who wants to support small business so that it can strangle workers. Small business needs support so that it can create opportunities for workers.

This whole issue with regard to the idea of deregulating and freeing up shop trading hours in the Adelaide CBD started with our member for Adelaide, who put forward a very sensible package here in parliament. She has worked with an enormous number of people to do it. She has been very flexible in her approach, and she has made adjustments, working with people from the government, employer groups and different industry groups. This is something that started over here. This is a very, very positive thing, but the point is that we do not need to progress this positive suggestion and take the two proposed half-day public holidays. That is a suggestion from the unions.

People trying to say that we cannot have one without the other are just trying to frame an argument. As I have heard a few of my colleagues say, they are trying to frame an argument that frames the Premier in the grip of the shoppies union. The reality is that we are perfectly capable of freeing up trading in Adelaide without the extra public holidays, and anybody who says that it is impossible to do one without the other is obstructing the main goal. Nobody on this side of parliament is opposed to paying penalty rates on public holidays. We just do not think we should have any more public holidays. It is as simple as that.

In the country areas, as you might know, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are very fortunate. We are very progressive in country areas, and we do have largely deregulated shop trading and it works very well. In fact, I will cite an example of the local Port Augusta traders association encouraging Big W to come into Port Augusta. It concerned a lot of people, it concerned a lot of traders, but the theory was that, if we could get another large department-type store that would trade seven days a week, it would bring business into Port Augusta, and that is exactly what it did.

I will not say that it was not without some stress and strain and some cost to some small businesses, but overall it has been a resounding success. What happens is that more people now come into Port Augusta. Whether they be Port Augusta residents doing their own shopping in Port Augusta instead of going further afield, whether they be people from the further afield country areas, or whether they be from Port Pirie, Whyalla or outback residents, they come into Port Augusta now because there is also this other very large seven-day a week trader that provides services that the other businesses cannot. All the other businesses benefit accordingly. They all benefit from this, and I am sure the same sort of thing can happen in Adelaide.

Everybody here knows that I have a rural and outback focus, but the city of Adelaide deserves exactly the same sort of flexibility that Port Augusta and other country areas have right now. I come back to my main point: we could support the city of Adelaide without adding these two half-day holidays. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]