STATUTES AMENDMENT (SHOP TRADING AND HOLIDAYS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 March 2012.)

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:00): Picking up my remarks from where I finished yesterday, I restate my main point, and that is that the opposition is not opposed at all to the payment of penalty rates at appropriate times. We do support extending shop trading hours, but we do not support the two new proposed half-day holidays, and we do not accept that it is impossible to do one without the other.

When I left off yesterday, I was moving on to choices. Choices are very important. Small, medium and large businesses must have choices and flexibility to be as efficient as possible to provide service, as well to support their own interests, as well as possible. As I said earlier, one of the reasons they need to have the opportunity to support their own interests is that, if they are not successful, they cannot employ people, and that will always be one of my main drivers. You need successful businesses to create employment so that the rest of society—the vast majority of people in South Australia—can have productive, useful employment, and that employment has to include access to choice as well. It is not only businesses that deserve to have choice and flexibility; employees deserve choice and flexibility.

While I certainly do agree that most people would like and deserve to be paid more to work outside of normal business hours, it is also important that people have the opportunity and the flexibility to work outside normal business hours. I do not accept the government's premise that every single person who works outside of nine to five Monday to Friday on a regular working week is being dragged or whipped into doing that by the employer. It is just not the case; employees want choice as well.

I can give a very real world, close-to-home example. My wife, Rebecca, is a nurse. She is paid on an hourly rate. Her hourly rate on the weekends is substantially higher than it is during the week, and she chooses not to work weekends. She is not chasing the money, and it is not that we are exceptionally wealthy or anything like that; that has been her practice for 10 to 15 years, long before we ever met each other. When she was a young woman supporting herself, living her own life, paying her own rent and doing all the normal things that most South Australians do, she preferred to work regular business hours—and it was not about trying to entice her with more money; some people prefer that.

I will give another example in my own personal life. I started out my working life doing labouring and construction. I was fortunate to be a healthy, strong young lad, and I liked to have flexibility with my work. I moved into hospitality work. I did a lot of hospitality work while I was playing basketball in the NBL because that fitted in—it had flexible hours. While I went to university, I did a lot of hospitality working—I did a lot of waiting, bar work and security work, that sort of thing—and I was really pleased to have flexibility, to have the opportunity to work at different times. I am not being churlish about this. Of course, I was grateful to earn more money at the times that were outside of regular business hours as well—that was terrific—and I certainly was not trying to knock that back.

But I have to say that the opportunity to work different, unusual hours, not the mainstream hours, is very important. So, for the government to try to pretend that absolutely nobody ever wants to do that and, if they are going to do that or ever even just be asked to do that, they must be paid more, is not true. That sort of flexibility is important. Shop trading hours is important for the employee and the employer.

As I said, I started out doing labouring work. I have also been an employer with outback roadhouses. I employed between 55 to 60 people at a time depending upon the season of the year (more in winter when we were busy and it was a tourism season), and I found that my own personal experience was exactly the same for many of the people whom I employed. They liked to have flexibility; they liked the opportunity to have a second job. It was not all about forcing them to come and work out of hours, and consequently they had to be paid more.

With respect to this issue about unions, there is no doubt that a deal has been done here between the shoppies union, the government and Business SA to get this done. I would be quite happy to put on record that I have no objection to unions. I object to unionism. All people deserve good, strong and effective advocacy groups. Employers deserve it; employees deserve it. It does not matter what you do, everyone deserves to have strong advocacy groups operating on your behalf and to have good access to them. But when those groups—whether it be an employer's or an employee's group, like a union—start to call the shots within the government, that is going too far, that is completely inappropriate and that is stepping well outside the bounds of representing their constituents—essentially their members—appropriately, and that is where we are at the moment with this legislation.

The opposition has no concerns about paying penalty rates for the public holidays that we have. We can provide more flexibility to shop trading hours in our state straightaway. The member for Adelaide has demonstrated that now on two occasions. She has worked with employees, with employers, with unions, with business groups and with local residents in the electorate that she represents. She has now for the second time put her own bill forward, proving that the opposition supports what the government wants to do with regard to deregulation of shopping hours.

What we do not support is the fact that it is impossible to do it without putting on the two new extra public holidays. These two new extra half-day public holidays will put a terribly unfair burden on businesses all over the state, and it is completely irresponsible for anyone to say that businesses outside the Adelaide business district—including the River Torrens precinct—have to pay extra wages so that, whether you are in Ceduna or you are in Cockburn, you have to pay extra wages at these other times on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve so that businesses in Adelaide can have the more flexible trading hours which they deserve and which, as I said yesterday, we actually already enjoy without any of those other problems in the city.

I heard one of my colleagues—I think that it might have been the member for Davenport—saying yesterday in this debate that there are a lot of people who actually like to work on Christmas Eve, they like to work on New Year's Eve. I remember when I used to work on those sorts of days and I used to work out of hours. I was living week to week, earning just enough to get by and that sort of thing, as most people often do, particularly in earlier years.

I was incredibly glad to work at times when my friends were out and about partying, not because I did not want to be with them but because you have a double saving: not only are you not spending your money but, simultaneously, you are actually earning some money. I thought that was pretty good because you can go and have fun at lots of other times as well. But to be able to earn money at a time where, most likely, you would have been spending and quite potentially wasting your money, I thought was a fantastic opportunity. So, I did not need to be dragged kicking and screaming to that, and I was very pleased to work at those sorts of times.

I will just finish by saying again that deregulation of shopping hours in the Adelaide business district is a positive thing. We have agreed with everything that the government has proposed except for the two public holidays. They are not necessary. Anyone who wants to pretend that they are is playing a silly, silly game, or they have found themselves in a negotiation with the union that they cannot get themselves out of.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Recreation and Sport) (12:08): Very briefly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because, in a former life, I worked a number of years as a console operator at a BP. Sometimes I dream of those days, sir, but—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Sometimes, every now and then. I can agree quite easily in many respects with what the member for Stuart was saying, but I deliberately worked Saturday nights, and I worked Saturday nights for a number of reasons, one of which was precisely as he outlined: my mates were out drinking beer and I was not. That was a good thing and I funded a lot of ski trips and surfing trips on the back of that savings strategy. Also, I point out that it was a lot easier to do that because Saturday nights had a loading. It was a lot easier to say yes to Saturday night work because it had a loading and it made life a bit easier and made it easier to work on those nights.

In my view, there is no problem with having two extra half holidays on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve, simply because social trends are changing around those nights. For a very long time Christmas Eve was not a night you went out. In fact, there were some quite restrictive trading arrangements on those nights, particularly around when licensed premises could and could not open. For a long time it involved meals, and so forth. That is changing.

New Year's Eve has always been a very large evening, a big night. People want to go out, go to parties, go to street parties and go out with their mates. It has always been like that, and it has been hard for employers even to find people on many occasions. In fact, again when I was working at the BP it was a casual arrangement, so I could just say no, and BP ended up having to pay double time or double time and a half simply to just get people to say yes.

Penalty rates are an attraction, and they get people to accept work. Also, with a lot of enterprise bargaining arrangements the choice kicks in when it is a declared public holiday. An increasing number of people are going out on Christmas Eve and starting to see it as a time to go out, before going home and spending the next day with their family. It is a time to spend with friends on New Year's Eve, and that means that people who are required to work pay the price. They cannot go out with their friends and enjoy themselves. There should be a penalty for that, there should holidays, and I support the bill.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:12): We all have anecdotes about how hard we worked and what we did to earn a crust. I think the worst job I ever had was sweeping out chicken sheds. It took me all weekend and I got 20 bucks for it. I needed the money as I was at uni studying then. I used to work at Trash and Treasure out at the Shandon Drive-In at Elizabeth; I would get up at 4.30 on a Sunday morning, go out and work my backside off all day and get home by about six. I cannot remember what I got paid, but it was not a whole lot—there was not a lot of incentive other than that I needed the money.

There is evidence that there are people out there who would exploit the good nature of people in dire circumstances if they are able to, but they are few and far between. What we are seeing here today is legislation that claims to be one thing but really is another. It will not achieve anything near the bonanza for businesses that has been proclaimed. It will not produce the freeing up of shopping hours and deregulation that so many people in this place want. We do not have anti-trust laws in Australia to my knowledge. I am not a lawyer; I am a humble veterinarian.

I believe there is a real issue with the duopoly we have in Woolworths and Coles and their power to squeeze the life out of small retail businesses. We need to make sure that what we do will give people a fair go. I am a strong believer in the fact that people in South Australia, whether they are mums and dads running businesses or bigger companies putting a lot of money on the line, they want a fair go. They want to be able to operate their business and want some return on their investment and on their effort.

I know in my veterinary practice that by law we had to provide access to veterinary services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, whether that was directly in my practice or via referral to an after-hours practice—for many years it was through my practice. I remember getting up in the middle of the night, answering phone calls, and going out and doing calls. I was able to charge an after-hours fee because I wanted some return. If it was one of my other vets who was working for me, I wanted them to have some incentive to go out and do that work, so I understand the need for penalty rates at particular times.

I do understand the need to be able to make your business work because turnover is vanity and profit is sanity. If you are going broke you are going nowhere fast, and none of us want that for businesses in South Australia. We hear about all these companies turning over millions and millions, but, if you are spending a million and one and turning over a million, you are going backwards. That is not sustainable. So we need to make sure that what we do in this place is going to be sustainable. We need to make sure that we do not combine or confuse issues that should be quite rightly resolved by the industrial relations system and issues that should be otherwise legislated for in this parliament.

We have a situation where we want to extend trading hours. We want to make some improvements in the access to shops for people in South Australia, particularly in the CBD, and we want to do that through this particular legislation. The big issue with this is the two half holidays. I will read out some emails from some of my constituents down at Glenelg about the issues they are facing, because this is a real problem for them.

Down at Glenelg we are in the very fortunate position of being the only gazetted tourist precinct in South Australia. Under the legislation, shops at Glenelg can open for many hours of the day, any day of the week, any time of the year. In fact, there is a big push by Jetty Road traders and the council at Glenelg to have as many of the shops open as possible so that passengers coming in on the cruise ship on Good Friday can come down to the Bay and shop. Buses are being put on to bring them down to the Bay. Other special events are being put on and, of course, many of the shops are being opened. The proprietors of those shops are willing to pay to have their employees come in and do what they want. What they do not want is extra public holidays being declared at the whim of this government making a union deal.

I openly boast that I have 106 restaurants and cafes within walking distance of my office down at Glenelg, and I am very proud of that. However, when these businesses are paying rent of $1,000 per square metre—

An honourable member interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: —more than that in some cases—that is a lot of cups of coffee, a lot of pizzas, a lot of meals that these businesses have to sell. We need to make sure that we are not putting further impositions on these people. We need to allow them to run their businesses and go home at night with some reward for their effort, because that is what we all want.

We have a strange situation in South Australia where every Sunday, as I understand it, is a public holiday. That is just the way it has been. I assume that penalty rates are being paid in those cases. We have New Year's Day, Australia Day, Adelaide Cup Day and Good Friday, which varies according to the lunar cycle. The day after Good Friday—7 April this year and 30 March next year; it varies a bit—is a public holiday. Easter Monday is a gazetted public holiday, as is ANZAC Day, of course. As Easter Monday and ANZAC Day fell on the 25 April in 2011, Easter Tuesday was a public holiday. I remember that.

The Queen's Birthday combines with Volunteers Day this year, which is on 11 June. Next year it is on 10 June. Labour Day is the first Monday in October. This year it is 1 October and next year it is 7 October. We have Christmas Day and we have Proclamation Day—never to be confused with mainland settlement day—down at the Bay on 28 December every year. This year, though, the holiday is on Wednesday 26 December, and, next year, it is on Thursday 26 December.

The need to have gazetted public holidays has been around for a long time. People enjoy the holidays. I enjoyed the last long weekend. Unfortunately, I did not get down to the track to see the wonderful spectacle of the Adelaide Cup as I had other commitments, but it is a great holiday, enjoyed by all South Australians.

What we are seeing here with this bill is a very ill thought-out attempt to try to deregulate shopping hours in South Australia. The end result is hopefully to increase the vibrancy of the CBD. While down at Glenelg it can happen already, I think the CBD needs a bit of extra help. Sure, there are some problems, and, as the shadow treasurer, the member for Davenport has pointed out, there are some issues that surround the police, the ambos, corrections officers and some other people, but that should be sorted out by the Industrial Relations Commission. In fact, in a letter to me from the Police Association of South Australia, Mark Carroll, the President, states:

The Police Association has attempted, through many enterprise-agreement negotiations, to address its members' concerns in respect of payment on New Year's Eve. SA Police rosters a large contingent of police officers who work on New Year's Eve to start between 7pm and 7.30pm.

Owing to this rostered start time, our members are not entitled to any payment at public holiday rates for work they perform after midnight. This is because they work the majority of their rostered shift on the non-public holiday New Year's Eve.

As Mark Carroll says, on behalf of the Police Association, they are enterprise bargaining agreement issues that should have been sorted out by this government a long time ago, and not trying to blur the whole issue here by bringing in the police, firies, nurses, ambos and correctional officers. They all have a genuine need to be given recognition for the hours they work and the shifts they work, but not by this piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that will, I hope, achieve some of its aims but it certainly does not need to have the two half public holidays in there.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (12:20): As the member for Adelaide, I am very supportive of initiatives that will invigorate the city and improve tourism and businesses. Whilst more shopping hours does not mean more money available to be spent, I believe the city is in a unique situation as a tourist precinct. When Glenelg was determined a tourist precinct some 10 years ago, it was on the basis of visitor numbers, high levels of interstate and international tourists, the number of businesses, the number of people attracted to events in the area, the number of accommodation rooms available, and major tourism-related developments.

The CBD has far more accommodation beds, it has many major tourism-related facilities, such as the Museum, the Art Gallery, the State Library, the Zoo, Ayers House Museum, the future Riverbank and the Oval redevelopments. In the middle of 'mad March' there can be no mistake that there are plenty of events that attract people to the area.

The CBD, on public holidays, has access to people from interstate, intrastate and overseas and the valuable shopping dollars they bring. Opening the Rundle Mall precinct on non-religious public holidays was one of the first bills I brought to parliament. I spoke about it in my maiden speech and many other speeches in parliament. I presented a petition with almost 2,000 signatures that I had collected, calling on the parliament to open Rundle Mall. Basically, I have been working on this for several years.

When I introduced my bill last year, the Labor Party unanimously voted it down. It was voted down because the SDA would not support more retail shopping hours in the city as its members apparently did not want to work on public holidays. Now, somehow, they are happy to work on public holidays as long as the rest of the state gets two extra half-day public holidays, which will not affect retail and the city at all. Surely this is a joke.

The argument of higher wages for those who work Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve is a separate argument and should be argued on its own merits. Why is their wage claim not considered the same as everyone else's by Fair Work Australia? Each industry negotiates the best wages and conditions on behalf of its workers. For example, some people such as nurses and firemen get six weeks' annual leave and work shifts. How is it fair not to consider any of the conditions and wages that have been negotiated over the years and just make a blanket ruling to pay 2.5 times the normal rate to everyone working Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve?

If this is the case, why do we not get rid of Fair Work Australia and the government can determine wage rates and conditions? What about the budget implications? Where will the money come from? This state is in massive debt. Surely it has a responsibility to determine the financial implications of this legislation to the state. Every dollar paid out by the government comes from the taxpayer's pocket. Should we at least consult with them, or perhaps you prefer the announce and defend approach?

Another issue I have with linking the two is that whilst we have had time to consult about opening Rundle Mall, as I brought this to parliament last year, we have not had the opportunity to consult our constituents regarding the extra public holidays. Currently, all states (except New South Wales) have 11 public holidays per year, adding two extra half-days will again add to the cost of running a business in this state, which is already the highest taxed state in Australia with businesses shutting down or leaving in droves.

Our economy is in a very bad position and many small businesses are struggling to survive. Let's consider each industry on its merits and not confuse the issue by combining two completely separate issues. Let's look at who is for and who is against. Those against the government bill come from a wide-ranging cross-section of small, medium and large businesses who have formed a group called the SA Business Coalition.

The coalition includes the AHA, Clubs of SA, the SA Wine Industry, Restaurant and Catering, Sip'n Save, the MTA, the South Australian Tourism Industry Council, the SA Liquor Stores Association, the SA Dairy Association, the Australian Meat Industry Council, Tourism Accommodation Australia, the NRA, Thirsty Camel, Australian Newsagents, the Aged Care Association of Australia, Caravan and Camping, the Shopping Centre Council of Australia, Family Business Australia, Baking Associations of Australia, AADA, the Boating Industry Association, Supported Accommodation and Care Services, and Service Station Division. That is a cross-section of many businesses who will be unfairly affected by this legislation.

Those who are in support of the government bill include the Adelaide City Council. The Adelaide City Council was instrumental in the bill that I brought to parliament last year. Their concern is more about opening the city than about the extra two half-day public holidays; however, they feel this is the only way that they will get it with a Labor government.

Romeo's, the Chapley Group and Drake, also listed as in favour of the current legislation proposed by the government, are all independent supermarkets that feel that they would be threatened by Coles and Woolworths if total deregulation went ahead. They have been fed a story by Labor that if they do not accept this 'pig of a deal' they will get total deregulation and that somehow this deal will ensure that no government in the future revisits the issue; which is absolute rubbish.

The Australian Services Union, the TWU, the Police Association, SA Unions, United Voice, the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation are also in support of the bill. Many of these workers are employed already by the government, so if the government feels so strongly about paying double time and a half on the two extra public holidays, it can now. There is no need for legislation to harm small businesses throughout the state.

An award is a minimum, not a maximum. Why punish small businesses that are struggling to survive? Other people listed in favour of this bill are the city retailers Maras group, Globalize, Rundle Mall, Adelaide Central Plaza, Shades and Southern Cross Arcade. All these people were also fully supportive of my bill, which did not include the two extra half-day public holidays. All they want is trading in Rundle Mall, which is unanimously wanted by both Liberal and Labor and all the Independents, so there is no need to couple this good piece of legislation with negative pieces of legislation.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What about Family First? What do they think?

Ms SANDERSON: They agree with my bill. Business SA's Peter Vaughan, supposedly representing businesses, has now linked up with the SDA union. I, like many others, have terminated my membership with Business SA in disgust because this is not representing small businesses in South Australia at all. If two new public holidays are such a good idea, they should be won on their own arguments and not coupled with shop trading hours. An open and transparent government would separate the bills and allow us to do our job of consulting our constituents.

To the member who called this a package, this is a dirty deal done by a powerful union from the right which installed the premier from the left. Do the people of South Australia really want a puppet for the SDA running our state? As we have seen, the government can declare any day or time open for trade. It did with Proclamation Day, Australia Day, and on Monday for Adelaide Cup. It has also permitted opening early on Sundays for cruise ships that have come in.

If this legislation fails, it is up to the government whether it opens the city on public holidays. Yes, opening Rundle Mall and creating a vibrant city is a great idea and is almost unanimously supported throughout the state. As I mentioned earlier, opening Rundle Mall was the first private member's bill I brought to parliament with the full support of the Liberal Party. However, in its current form, coupled with the two extra half-day public holidays, I reject this bill.

Mr Marshall: Excellent speech.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Mount Gambier—and we don't need a running commentary from the member for Norwood, thank you very much.

Mr Marshall: I defend my right to agree with my colleagues.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Mr Deputy Speaker, can I just add that you are within your rights, sir, to eject people, under standing orders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have contemplated that.

Mr Marshall: Is this part of your new civility code?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Norwood!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Regarding the Premier's point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it was a comment rather than a point of order.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Could I also make the point you are entitled to eject people from both sides of the house for interjection?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr Marshall: Hardly likely.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Norwood, you will withdraw that comment or leave the chamber.

Mr MARSHALL: I am happy to withdraw that comment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the member for Davenport's benefit, I have on a number of occasions told the member for Croydon to tone it down as well.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Norwood!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order: why make that point to me and not to the Premier as well?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because the Premier was not actually making a point of order; he was actually making a comment. You chose to make it a point of order.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Mr Deputy Speaker, by your own admission, the Premier's action was out of order and you took no action against him. You just admitted to the house what the Premier did was not a point of order. We all know you cannot just make a comment, so I think I have illustrated my point.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mount Gambier.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:30): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am pleased that you have sorted that out. In my opening address to this session of parliament—my address in reply—I did say how important it was that, when we make decisions in this place, we make sure that those decisions do not have adverse effects on other areas in this state, and I will not be able to support this bill because of that reason.

I certainly support the intention of the bill; I do believe that the shops in Rundle Mall should be open more often, and that we should have a vibrant CBD. I understand the Labor Party, with 25 of its 26 members all coming from Adelaide, wanting to see the CBD open more, and I certainly support that. I can understand the shoppies union, in the interest of their members, pushing for two extra half holidays on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve so that they can achieve more for their members.

What does disappoint me is the stance that Business SA has taken. I will just read a bit from their website:

We actively lobby on your behalf to achieve the best business environment for this State. We are your voice.

We represent and advocate strongly the business perspective on current and emerging policy issues. We lead without fear, favour or any kind of bias.

We consult closely with our members—

And I would question the consultation process they went through in this deal—

and work with the government and political leaders to achieve positive and constructive outcomes for local industry and commerce.

The strength of our membership base, which ranges from small to medium size businesses to large companies and multinationals, enables us to gather valuable insight.

I would suggest that Business SA certainly did not consult strongly with their members right throughout the state, and did not look at what the repercussions of this bill would be.

I can understand the police and health workers unions wanting to see these two half holidays come in, and I certainly understand that they may wish to be paid extra for working on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, but we also must take into consideration that their present industrial awards and enterprise bargaining agreements take into consideration the fact that some of those people may have to work on those nights.

The effect on the cafes, hotels and restaurants in my electorate immediately would be looking at a 250 per cent increase in wage bills on those nights. If you look at an average restaurant in Mount Gambier that is selling a $30 plate of food, at the moment about $10 of that goes to the cost of the food itself, $10 in wages and another $10 in running the restaurant and trying to make a bit of a profit. If this bill goes through, on those nights either they will have to shut or put their meals up to about $45. They will then lose the faith of their clientele, and it would be much harder for those restaurants, so the only alternative for them is to actually shut.

With our hotels, the permanent employees—the front of house staff in those hotels that have accommodation, and of course, the security staff—will all see that immediate increase if these two public holidays are determined. The casuals in the hotels will remain the same as they are at the moment until 2015, under an agreement that has been bought down. From 2015, they would probably be looking at a 275 per cent increase. There is no way known that our hotels would be able to operate in the same way as they do now with those extra imposts on them.

I was voted into this place as an Independent who acts in the best interest of Mount Gambier. I do not have to answer to the Labor Party or to the Liberal Party, or to the unions or to the business houses—

Mr Gardner: What about Peter Malinauskas?

Mr PEGLER: I beg your pardon! I will always act in the best interests of Mount Gambier and I do not want to see our restaurants, cafes and hotels close and the people employed in those places without a job on those nights. So whilst I do support the fact that the shops should be open more often in the CBD, I do not support the fact that it will happen at the expense of many of the entertainment areas, etc., in my electorate. I cannot support this bill in its present form.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (12:36): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Shop Trading and Holidays) Bill. The bill seeks to do four things, three of which are related to each other and one of which is not.

First, as many speakers have said, we are amending the Shop Trading Hours Act to extend shop trading hours on most public holidays in the CBD (boundaries between the terraces and the Torrens), a goal which the Liberal Party supports, and which it has supported for some time, and which was reflected by the support the Liberal Party gave to the member for Adelaide's bill last year which would have achieved largely the same thing.

Secondly, we are looking to amend the Shop Trading Hours Act to reduce red tape and regulation in relation to the exemption process. It is a worthy goal and we support that. Thirdly, we are amending the Shop Trading Hours Act to remove some obsolete provisions, and we support that as well. Of course, all those are related to each other. It helps to create a vibrant city—a goal which, as I said, the Liberal Party has supported for many years and which the Labor Party has consistently objected to and opposed for many years.

Fourthly, we are amending the Holidays Act to create two extra part-day public holidays from 5pm until 12 midnight on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. As members have put forward, this is effectively an industrial relations measure wrapped up in the language of making a vibrant city. It is something that is more appropriately dealt with in a distinct act. I am an old-fashioned sort of person when it comes to looking at legislation, and I think that we should be judging things on their merits. Presenting bills as packages, as some sort of deal, as something that is presented by Peter Malinauskas and Peter Vaughan as a fait accompli and therefore the government has to sign up to it, is not a suitable way to approach legislation—and we will not be sucked into doing so, as the government has been.

Government speakers have largely—not universally; some of them have gone to the merits of the bill—spoken about how they are apparently the ones who want a city full of vibrancy. A second theme that has run through many of these contributions has been this straw man, whether this bill seems to be an argument between total deregulation or the partial liberalisation that is on offer here. The Minister for Small Business described it by saying:

There is a choice in a 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.

I will get back to that in a moment, but I want to clearly put on the record that this bill is an alternative, between the status quo or somewhat of a liberalisation of shopping hours in the CBD. This straw man that is being put up—that it is either the bill that is ahead of us or total deregulation—is not actually the case at all, and it is inappropriate for ministers to present the debate in such a way.

The opposition supports the government's bill inasmuch as it seeks to create a more vibrant CBD. In fact, in that way it has reflected bills put to this parliament by the Liberal Party as recently as November 2010, which the government opposed. The lead speaker for the government on that occasion was the member for Little Para, who at the time said:

The government does not support the re-establishment of discriminatory, anti-competitive trading hour differences between the Adelaide metro area retail sector...

He then went on to say:

Clearly, this bill would significantly disadvantage retailers and retail workers in suburban shopping centres.

Are we to believe him then or are we to believe them now? The Labor Party has no credibility on this issue at all. The lead speaker for the government on that bill went on to say:

To open Rundle Mall at the proposed times will surely result in an overall reduction in the money being spent in centres like Elizabeth. It is anti-competitive and may ultimately disadvantage retail workers, especially young retail workers who do not have the option of extra hours in the city.

That is what the government thought on 25 November. The member for Mawson has some form on this. He told us how he lived in Switzerland for two years:

The shops there are not open on Sundays, and guess what? People survive.

He went on to say:

There are plenty of opportunities for people to go shopping. There are shopping precincts in South Australia that are open on Sundays, so opening up the mall is not the be-all and end-all.

The Minister for Small Business said yesterday:

...all South Australians know and accept that the CBD should be open.

The government has no credibility on this. The Deputy Premier pointed out 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.

Are we to seriously expect, from pronouncements by the Minister for Small Business and by the Deputy Premier, that the government believes any longer, as they did previously, that opening up the CBD is not appropriate on public holidays? Clearly, they cannot walk back from this. They have finally accepted the rationale, they have finally accepted the truth that opening up the CBD on public holidays, with the obvious exceptions of Christmas Day, Good Friday and ANZAC Day in the morning, is in the state's best interests.

If they are serious about what the new Premier put in the Governor's speech about having a vibrant Adelaide, they have made clear the necessity for extended shopping hours to take place. The opposition supports them on that and that is why we will be supporting the first three parts of the bill, as I described before: amending the Shop Trading Hours Act to extend shop trading hours on most public holidays in the CBD, to reduce red tape and regulation and to remove some obsolete provisions. That is the first part of the bill—the bill that deals with making Adelaide a vibrant city. The opposition supports it and we look forward to it happening in the very near future.

The other part of the bill is completely unrelated—putting two extra part-day public holidays from 5pm until midnight on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve for every business, for everyone in South Australia. As the Liberal Party and other speakers have said, these considerations are more appropriately dealt with in the consideration of somebody's entire package.

I will not go over all of the ground that has already been covered in that part of the debate, but I want to bring to the house's attention issues particularly related to the disability sector that will be affected by this bill. One managing director of a company that deals in this area has gone public and I will get to him in a moment, but I have spoken to a number of others who rely on having good relations with the government and have therefore been unwilling to go on the record for fear of being dealt with in a less favourable manner for having done so.

I will start with Andrew Marshall, the Managing Director of SACARE, who, on 7 March, courageously went on FIVEaa to point out the impact this will have on those individuals who require personal care services just to get through their daily lives and that includes from 5pm until midnight on any night, not just those two holidays. Mr Marshall went on to say:

If it goes ahead—

he is talking about this bill—

most of the community based clients to whom we provide services and other people provide services are funded by Disability SA.

Disability SA...look at a funding package that they apply to someone and they will either say it is too dear to provide a service at that time on these two particular days...or alternatively they will take the whole package and they will shave hours off it so that they can fall back into their normal budgets. At the moment if an individual...got five hours a day service and those five hours happened to drop in the evening when they want a meal prepared or go to bed or whatever, that time will be shaved back to three and a half hours or whatever it takes to maintain the dollar cost for...the period of time that that service is being provided.

The issue here is that we are not just talking about those people who might want to go and buy groceries at any time of the day or night, or on a public holiday; we are not just talking about the people who might want to go to dinner on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, and might have to pay more to go to a bar or a restaurant; and we are not just talking about that sector of the economy which may be forced to shut because of the extra costs imposed upon those businesses.

This bill also has consequences to some of the most vulnerable people in our community; people who are reliant on assistance for the things that they do that anyone in this chamber takes for granted such as getting out of bed, and having a shower. They are reliant on the personal care services provided by these companies, either through the block funding supplied by Disability SA, or on the personal contracts brokered on behalf of Disability SA.

These companies are not getting the extra pay rises from government in accordance with the police or the other public services to compensate for the lack of services that they are no longer able to provide for the same cost. We are talking about a significant cost impost. I spoke to another CEO of one of these organisations and, to put it into perspective, regular care service in this sort of environment might attract $20 per hour. This bill will put that cost up for these periods to $45 per hour, along with other costs. We are effectively talking about $60 per hour for somebody to go to these houses and help people go to bed.

As this person put it to me, the question that the government needs to answer—if they are unwilling to provide the extra funding which we have had no indication that they will, and I will get further into that in a moment—if they are unwilling to provide the extra funding, the head of one of these companies said, 'Which person, which client, are they not going to put to bed that night? Which clients are they are not going to help have dinner that night?'

The government has no answer for this. The government has been silent on it. On Friday night, minister Hunter, from the other place, was on the television news saying that he had told the Treasurer that we needed a significant increase in funding to disability services in this year's budget, just so that we will be on an even par with the other states. Minister Hunter was honest enough to tell the news crews that the Treasurer had said, 'We are in constrained financial times,' and he had some pessimism about whether that would take place, and that is even before this bill goes through, which will put extra costs onto these personal care services.

At the moment, the government needs to have a serious look at the block funding that they provide to groups to look after a number of these clients because, in many—I dare say, in most—of these cases the block funding does not meet the costs involved in providing these services, and these services vary from time to time. Some of them need help getting out of bed, some need help washing, and some need help going about daily tasks, in many ways.

Often a carer may visit a client three or four, or two or five times a day, depending on the level of service required and, under this bill, if any of those services fall after 5pm on New Year's Eve or Christmas Eve, then those services may either not be provided at all, or severely curtailed. Perhaps the government thinks it is appropriate that somebody with a disability who needs assistance going to bed, must do so before 5 o'clock on Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve, because that is certainly the outcome that will be prompted by this bill.

The lack of interest by the government is very concerning. I will not be supporting the parts of the bill that amends the Holidays Act to create these two extra part-day public holidays. It is more appropriate for those issues to be dealt with in the standard measures in which we deal with questions about entitlements and workplace entitlements. A bill that is ostensibly designed to increase the vibrancy of the city, which is a worthy goal, is not the appropriate place to debate that, and I question whether it is appropriate for the government to blindly sign up to this package presented by Peter Malinauskas and Peter Vaughan, which does not represent South Australian business as a whole, other than the independent grocers who, of course, are very concerned about their own interests, but opening up the city will not hurt them.

Other than a few other individuals such as Peter Vaughan, this bill does not have the support of businesses in South Australia. An overwhelming proportion of the businesses and business groups in South Australia are opposed to this part of the bill. We support the government in opening up the city. We look forward to the opportunity to amend the bill so that it will do just that.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:50): I will not keep the house a long time on this. There have been many words from our side of the house on the stupidity of this. Only in South Australia could we have this ludicrous situation that we are debating a bill such as this. I find it absolutely ridiculous. Monday, you would have to say, was a fine example of where stupidity reigned supreme in South Australia. Mr John Chapman fronted, amongst others, the Premier, Peter Vaughan from Business SA and Stephen Yarwood, the Lord Mayor. I would have to say that those gentlemen looked like startled kangaroos in a wheat crop when their heads shot up. They did not expect to be ambushed by John Chapman and I think they thought they could get away with what they are doing. I just find it totally ridiculous, quite frankly.

Heaven help the state with Business SA being run as it is currently. I suspect that whoever takes on Business SA after Mr Vaughan retires—and he should go sooner rather than later—is going to have to pick up a mess and sort it all out and try to get some credibility into an organisation which once had some degree of respect. Unfortunately, now, the wheels have fallen off and we have this mess to deal with in the parliament.

I would like to pick up on some points that the member for Davenport made the other day in his speech. There is absolutely no thought whatsoever for the impact on businesses outside the city. This is the issue. The member for Davenport brought out in his speech the effect on places such as Mount Gambier, Port Pirie and others. I would like to tell the house, Madam Speaker, that this is going to have a dramatic effect on businesses in my electorate—in Victor Harbor, Port Elliot, Middleton, Yankalilla, Mount Compass, Penneshaw, Kingscote, American River or Parndana, it doesn't matter. Right across my electorate this foolish sort of activity—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: American River.

Mr PENGILLY: American River I said, Mick. You were missing. You were too busy thinking about the Attorney-General. The impact on businesses across my electorate, and other electorates, is most important to consider and they are not being considered. They have been totally ignored and, unfortunately, what we have is that the new Premier, put in place by the SDA, is doing exactly what his master is telling him, and that is the sad situation we have in South Australia.

In this state we are seeing common sense and any sensible outcome go out the door, while the other states laugh at this state over our shopping hours debate that goes on and on. It is just a sad day when we have to go through this debacle in the parliament. I hope, ultimately, that the government changes and we get a decent Liberal government in place in South Australia. Mr Malinauskas is saying we will finally put an end to all this nonsense but all Mr Malinauskas is doing is stirring up more trouble. He is impinging on the rights of small business across the state outside the central city area. I find it totally ludicrous and ridiculous, and we will just have to wait to see what the outcome will be. Until such time as some firm action is taken, we are just going to continue to debate foolishness.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:54): I do not support this bill in its current form. I understand and notice that the opposition has some amendments. I would like to look beyond just the narrow focus of this bill. Someone said to me this morning (someone who is not involved in politics and someone who is fairly smart) that this state needs to get its shop trading hours sorted out once and for all to stop what is a continuous circus going on where—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Was that Leon?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: No, it wasn't Leon. It was someone else; it was a relative. It needs to be sorted out. It has been said here that business needs certainty, but it also is confusing to the public. I am sure that there are a lot of people who did not realise that they could shop earlier this week. There is misunderstanding and confusion about the whole thing. If there is one lesson that we should learn from what is going on it is to sort out shop trading hours once and for all—get a sensible and reasonable arrangement and stick to it.

I do not have a problem with these specific public holidays, but I think sometime in the future the government needs to look at the whole issue of public holidays. I have argued this before. Some I would call core public holidays, like Christmas Day, but there are others which people could take maybe as an additional day on their holiday without having to shut down the whole state under the guise of a public holiday.

The penalty provision of 2½ times I think is excessive. People ask why we are losing jobs overseas. I can tell you why: because we are outpricing ourselves in terms of what we are paying, and I say that collectively. It is not fair to pick on people who work in call centres, Holdens, or elsewhere. The whole of society—and governments in particular—has to have a look at what we are paying ourselves. You can pay yourself only what the community and what the economy generates by way of wealth, otherwise you go down the path of Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal. If you try to live beyond what you actually generate in wealth, you soon end up on the slippery slope down into debt and into further problems.

As a society our productivity is pathetic. It is less than half of that of Singapore, and Singapore does not have anywhere near the resources we have and we cannot even match them for productivity; so that tells you something. It is because as a nation we are milking the system in a way that is not warranted by the amount of wealth creation.

We are milking the system because in many cases many people—not everyone in the workforce—are overpaid for what they do. They have all these benefits: additional leave, long service leave, leave loading, public holidays. We have a situation where it is hard to get people doing constructive things because there are so many holidays and breaks, and it is no wonder we are not very productive. It is more important what you do in your work time than just simply the hours you put in, but you will not produce much if you are not in a work-type environment.

I think it is time as a nation that we have a look at this whole issue. If it was not for the holes in the ground up north we would be in a fairly parlous state economically because we are living beyond our means and the wealth we create.

The benefits of this bill will extend beyond shop assistants. Shop assistants work hard and I have high regard for them. I know many of them in the shops in Rundle Mall by their first name. However, as I said earlier, you do not need to be paying a penalty rate of 2½ times. If you had a more moderate penalty regime, you would create so many jobs and you would not have any unemployment at all.

I understand that the police in their latest EB have an extra one month holiday after five years of service. So, they get their six weeks annual leave, they get their long service leave, and now they get another month. How many more holidays, penalties and provisions do people want? I conclude by saying I do not support this bill in its current format, and I will be supporting many of the amendments moved by the opposition because then they make great sense.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (12:59): I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.