Motions

Shop Trading Hours

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (10:52): I move:

That this house—

(a) notes the extraordinary influences unions (and in particular the SDA) have over policy decisions of the state Labor government; and

(b) supports changes to the Shop Trading Hours Act to allow families in Marion, Noarlunga, Tea Tree Gully, Port Adelaide and Munno Para to have access to similar shopping hours as families in the Adelaide CBD and Glenelg.

Nothing more perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with this Labor Party than this motion. Nothing encapsulates what is wrong with Labor more than this motion. What we in the Liberal Party have announced in the lead-up to the next 2018 election is a policy that helps to stimulate growth in our retail sector, that helps to stimulate jobs in our retail sector and helps to create a more vibrant Adelaide.

Something that the Deputy Premier tries to do with small bars and lights on Bank Street, we have tried to do by creating real jobs, sustainable jobs, in the retail industry in South Australia. What we have instead of a cooperative government seeking to work with us on this reform is a Labor Party that is beholden to the special interests that underpin them in every possible regard. Why do we need to see a liberalisation of shop trading hours in South Australia? In September 2014, a Productivity Commission inquiry recommended the full deregulation of retail trading hours in all states, including on public holidays. Their report stated:

Trading hours remain the most restricted in Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia. These jurisdictions have not pressed on with statewide reforms to deregulate trading hours since 2011 and overall they have shown a weak appetite for reform.

The Harper review in 2015 considered that:

…deregulating trading hours should be a priority for those States where the tightest restrictions on retail trading hours apply, because there lies the greatest potential gain. To this end, Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia should aim to complete the reforms within two years.

We have two highly reputable sources that say we need to liberalise trading hours in South Australia, but what do we get from Labor? We get stonewalling and we get them beholden completely to their sectional interests. In fact, we did not even have to wait for the Premier to announce their response to our policy. They just got Josh Peak from the SDA to do it.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down. I am on my feet; that means you too. Surely, I do not have to remind members of the standing orders, which require all members to be heard in silence. Is your phone off? I expect to be able to hear the member for Schubert's contribution.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that a muttering under your breath, member for Colton?

The Hon. P. Caica: No.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is adjusting his throat.

Mr KNOLL: I promise to speak up, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I am protecting him. I insist on protecting him.

Mr KNOLL: What we have here is a policy that would liberalise shop trading hours, that would help to create jobs in South Australia. The idea that we have a union movement, a union and a Labor Party beholden to that union, which would oppose new jobs in its sector is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, we saw reports out earlier this week, or late last week, about the fact that the union movement in South Australia in the private sector has less than 10 per cent representation. Less than one in 10 private sector workers is a member of a union.

With the restrictive and fairly generous provisions the SDA has for their employers to sign up members to their union, surely having more jobs within the retail sector in South Australia would actually help to grow the membership base of the SDA, but no, we do not want to talk about that. We do not want to talk about new jobs. We do not want to talk about employment opportunities, especially for the most vulnerable South Australians, who are primarily the ones taking these jobs.

This policy is about choice and giving the opportunity for choice in where and when South Australians want to shop. Surely, consumers in South Australia deserve this opportunity. This policy is about giving businesses the opportunity about when and where they want to open. Surely, the government would be on board with that. Labor in South Australia wants to restrict choice. They want to tell South Australians when and where they can shop and how and when they can shop, as opposed to letting people make those decisions for themselves.

I am sure that in response Labor is going to get up and beat us up for being on the side of big business. I can tell you that we on this side of the house are here for consumers in South Australia. We on this side of the house are for small business and their having the opportunity to open when they want to, and we on this side of the house are the true friend of the worker by allowing them to work when they can and want to work. If we really want to examine who is on the side of big business, we only need to look at—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Reynell and everybody on my right are reminded of the standing orders.

Mr KNOLL: —this symbiotic relationship. The relationship between the Labor Party, the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association and big business in South Australia is like a set of triplets cosying up to each other in a mother's womb. Who, on that side of the house, owes their career to the SDA? It is the member for Croydon, the member for Ramsay, the member for Playford, the member for West Torrens, the honourable member for Newland, the member for Kaurna, the member for Little Para and the member for Elder. In the other place, the Hon. Tung Ngo also owes his place in this parliament to the SDA.

So, when we announce our policy and Josh Peak gets up and responds on behalf of the Labor government, none of us is surprised. You all know you have to sit down and remain beholden to the SDA because to go against your paymasters will result in your preselections being challenged. Almost a third of the Labor Party's representation comes from this one union. Who are the people who are members of their union? They are predominantly casual, they are predominantly young, they are predominantly female and they are predominantly students.

These are young people who, in between their study, in between doing other things, are geared towards working weekends and odd hours. In fact, they want the penalty rates that come with those weekends and long hours. If we want to look at a group who are in the pockets of big business in South Australia, it is the SDA. About half a million workers are covered by SDA agreements. These workers work at Coles, Woolworths, Bunnings, Domino's Pizza, McDonald's, Hungry Jack's and the Super Retail Group, which includes a whole heap of different businesses.

These are large retail employers in South Australia, and herein lies the beautiful triplet symbiotic relationship that exists—all cosying up together, greased by the amniotic fluid that exists inside a mother's womb. They cuddle together in a beautiful cosy relationship that benefits everybody. It seems very straightforward, and nothing demonstrates this relationship more closely than the fact that Coles and Woolies are reported to pay $5 million in commissions back to the SDA—up to $40 million over the past decade—as a quid pro quo for being able to sign up members to the SDA.

You would think that in this beautiful relationship in South Australia that the SDA would stick up for the pay packets of their workers. We see the members on the government side foaming at the mouth about decisions of the Fair Work Commission that they set up and the terms of reference that they put in place and then how they do not like the result. You would think that they would be here to stick up for the pay packets of workers, but what has actually been the result? The result has been an SDA that has been willing to shaft their own members to line their own pockets so that they can in turn line the Labor Party's pockets.

In 2010, McDonald's did an agreement with the SDA that dudded 80,000 workers across this country, of which one-third are from non-English-speaking backgrounds and 80 per cent are casual. In most stores, the average age is 18. They were underpaying their workers to the tune of at least $50 million, according to reporting by the Sydney Morning Herald. That is $50 million in the pockets of big business being flown across to the SDA and the Labor Party instead of in the pockets of hardworking, young, potentially non-English-speaking workers in Australia.

Domino's workers are reported to be missing out on at least $32 million a year in penalties. In Tasmania, Hungry Jack's has had to pay back almost $1,000 per worker in back pay. What we see here is the fact that we have a Labor Party which is beholden to its union, a union which is beholden to its big business, which all flows through to lining the Labor Party's pockets, which is why we cannot get decent reform when it comes to shop trading hours with a Labor government in power in South Australia.

I invite those on the government side to explain why it is okay, when a worker wants to work, to tell them that they cannot have that job. Why is it okay that they want them to sit at home and do nothing as opposed to be able to earn good penalty rates at odd hours of the day, night and weekends so that they can afford to put themselves through university and other further education? Why is that okay? Why is it okay to say to South Australians, 'You can shop online and send your dollars interstate and overseas because you cannot stop the internet from being on 24 hours a day,' but when small business in South Australia actually wants to compete with online business, no, that is not okay. We prefer to see those dollars being spent overseas and interstate as opposed to being spent here. Why is that okay?

Why is it okay that small businesses are being disadvantaged because they are in a different industry type to other businesses? Take, for instance, a small IGA sitting down the road from an On The Run. Why is it okay that the On The Run can open for 24 hours a day, selling exactly the same products as an IGA that has to close at these odd times and cannot compete? Why is that okay? The answer is we will not get anything from the other side that actually makes sense on this issue. All we will get is vested interest and them looking after their paymasters, because to do anything other is to challenge their preselection.

In South Australia, in March 2018, we are going to have an election, and South Australians are going to vote for a government which is going to raise the bar, which is going to make sense, which will look after their interests whether they are a small business, a worker or a consumer. They are going to make that choice. The hypocrisy and the ridiculous idiocy of the policy of members opposite is going to be shown up for what it is. I invite somebody on the opposite side to come up and speak sense on this issue. I doubt it. What you will see is the groupthink that exists on the other side of the house. They will be shown up for what they are, and that is a bunch of hypocrites. I look forward to March 2018 when we can right this wrong, we can look after the true welfare of the people of South Australia and the Labor Party can be exposed for who they really are.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment. No, I do not think you all understand. What happened for the member for Schubert, trying to be heard in silence, is going to happen for the member for Kaurna. I will start warning people, which means question time becomes precarious for you, so you have a choice of either observing the standing orders or not.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:04): I would like to move an amendment to this motion, as follows:

After the word 'extraordinary' delete all words and replace with:

(a) …work of the union movement in South Australia in protecting and improving workers' wages and conditions;

(b) supports the current Sunday and public holiday shop trading provisions that get the balance right to support small business to compete against national and multinational supermarkets and allow retail workers to spend time with their families; and

(c) opposes the cuts by the Fair Work Commission to Sunday and public holiday penalty rates for employees in retail and hospitality.

We move this amendment to support the current provisions that get the balance right for shop trading hours in South Australia, but also to support the fact that we have in South Australia a strong union movement that represents workers and represents their interests to make sure that we have good pay and conditions for our employees in South Australia.

The motion that was put forward by the member for Schubert is really in the fine traditions of the Liberal Party in opposing workers' conditions, in opposing workers' rights to have a weekend, to have public holidays and to support big businesses over small businesses, because that is what this is really all about when it comes down to it.

Currently, small businesses in South Australia, if you have a shop of less than 400 square metres—the vast majority of our IGAs, the vast majority of our butchers, greengrocers and bakeries in South Australia—you can open whenever you like, and these provisions restricting shop trading hours applying in the suburbs only apply to those very large supermarkets. So, they are the people—the Woolworths, the Coles and the Aldis—who would like to see changes made to our shop trading hours provisions. They are the only ones—they and the Liberal Party—wanting that to happen.

We know that, if you talk to small businesses across Adelaide—to bakeries, butchers and greengrocers, like I do and like all members on this side of the house do—you know that they do not want to see changes made to shop trading hours provisions in South Australia because they know that it would be enormously hurtful for their businesses, enormously hurtful for their ability to compete against the big supermarket chains—the big national and international supermarket chains—in this state.

One of the great things about our industry here in South Australia is the huge number of IGAs and Foodlands we have in the industry in South Australia compared with other states. That would be put at massive risk, if these changes were to be proposed as the Liberal Party is proposing, because we know that all those independent grocers support South Australian products from right across the regions of South Australia. You see a huge number of South Australian products on those shelves that you do not see when you go to Woolworths, Coles or Aldi.

Unfortunately, the effect of what the Liberal Party is proposing—and this will be a massive issue for debate at the next election—would see Woolworths and Coles increase their market share, would see small businesses closing down across Adelaide and would see IGAs and Foodlands across Adelaide put at huge risk. You only have to look at a number of the quotes from people such as Roger Drake, the CEO of Drake Supermarkets, who said:

There's no doubt that the extra hours will mean extra costs and it must be passed on to the consumer in the end. South Australia's one of the cheapest places to buy groceries. If that's the case, why are we going to extend it? I've been lucky enough to travel the world and big cities like Rome and Paris don't have the trading hours that we have.

I…feel for the butcher, the fruit and veg shops; these small businesses that the Liberal Party is supposed to support are just going to go to the wall. All this will favour will be the big end of town—it will favour the Coles, the Woolworths and the Westfields—because the big end of town can afford to open, they can withhold the extra wages that they'll have and all of a sudden they'll push the butcher shop, they'll push the fruit shop out. They'll be forced to close and where will the volume shift? It will shift to the big end of town.

This is very important for everybody to realise: when the Liberal Party says that they support small businesses, that is completely false. They are supporting big businesses, they are supporting the big national and international chains, and we on this side are supporting the small businesses in this state. We are supporting all those small chains that would be at huge risk if the changes that are being proposed by the Liberal Party were to go forward.

We know that this is in a fine tradition of the Liberal Party, as well. Not only do they attack workers in terms of shop trading hours but they have also attacked workers in terms of federally bringing in WorkChoices, federally not supporting penalty rates, which is something we are continuing to oppose, the cuts to penalty rates on Sundays and public holidays. That is very important for families. I know that in my electorate a huge number of families rely on those penalty rates to make sure they can provide for their kids and provide for their families. Having that massive pay cut is going to be a huge risk to those families.

Basically, what the Liberal Party is saying is that you should be able to work whenever your boss wants you to work, there will be no public holidays or Sunday trading and there will be no penalty rates. They do not want to see penalty rates either. It is really putting workers at risk, and that is why we have a union movement in this country. That is why we have people who are standing up for workers in this country, to give them a fair go, to give them good pay and conditions, to fight for their weekends, to fight for their public holidays, to fight for their occupational health, safety and welfare.

It is not just in retail; it is in hospitality, and I know we have a huge number of nurses here—and I congratulate them on the great work they do—and I am sure they are all very pleased that they have a very strong union fighting for them, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Association.

Ms Cook: The biggest in Australia.

Mr PICTON: That is right; it is the biggest in Australia, as the member for Fisher says. All those workers, whether they are nurses, teachers, shop assistants or hospitality workers, have the rights they do in this country and the pay and conditions they do in this country because they have a union movement, supported by the Labor Party, fighting for them and making sure that their rights are protected.

That is what we are going to do in terms of shop trading hours, that is what we are going to do in terms of penalty rates, and that is what we are going to do in terms of a whole range of their other rights and conditions, because we need to put those people first. We are putting people first, putting the workers first, and we are also putting the small businesses in this state first as well as the suppliers to those small businesses from this state across our regions, who are growing fantastic produce that would not otherwise be on the shelves if we had just Woolies and Coles.

It is going to be a huge issue going into the next election, when all of us will be going out and talking to all those small business people in our electorates and all those marginal Liberal electorates about the fact that if the Liberal Party were to come in they are going to be at huge risk. Their financial viability in this state is going to be at huge risk, and it is all going to Woolies and it is all going to Coles and it is all going to Aldis. That is the fairness they see, supporting those big national and international businesses at the expense of the very small businesses in this state.

You also see what the South Australian Independent Retailers had to say about this as well. Their CEO, Colin Shearing, said:

If we open this up what'll happen is that people will be forced to work only to be forced to open their shops to compete and what will happen from there is that the share—the market doesn't change, the market pie is the same and that'll be spread amongst everyone and the small businesses will lose and jobs will be shed.

At no stage we're saying that that shouldn't be changed because this will just play into the hands of the big massive shopping centres we've got out there the big Coles and Woolies and Aldis. This is obviously a push by them and we certainly don't support the Liberals' policy in this area.

So we have the big players in terms of our independent shopping outlets in South Australia opposing the Liberal Party, saying this is bad for small business, bad for workers, bad for our producers in South Australia. That is why on this side of the house we are sticking up for those small businesses. We will stick up for the workers and we will continue to stick up for our producers in South Australia who supply those retailers. We will take this all the way to the election and we will let the people have their say.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:14): I rise to support the motion by the member for Schubert:

That this house—

(a) notes the extraordinary influences unions (and in particular the SDA) have over policy decisions of the state Labor government; and

(b) supports changes to the Shop Trading Hours Act to allow families in Marion, Noarlunga, Tea Tree Gully, Port Adelaide and Munno Para to have access to similar shopping hours as families in the Adelaide CBD and Glenelg.

What a rant we have just heard from the member for Kaurna. Anyone would think it was 1917 and not 2017. Labor live in a world of nine to five. They talk about our nurses—and I absolutely respect our nurses who are here today and the nurses who are carrying out their fine trade supporting our community—but next they will be suggesting that nurses only work nine to five. It is totally ridiculous, especially when I reflect on the fact that in country regions our shops have extended trading hours. In Murray Bridge, both Coles supermarkets are open from 6am to 10pm and both Woolworths supermarkets are open from 7am to 9pm, so why can we not do that in the city? It is just ridiculous.

We talked about the lobbyists, and Colin Shearing's name was mentioned. Recently, some regulations had to be ratified, and I take my hat off to the Attorney-General for his fairness because they had to be ratified across the state to make sure people were operating within the law to ratify those extended shop trading hours. There had been some oversight in regard to the regulation, but the Attorney-General gave us about six months to sort that out with our local communities, and it was worked out at a local level. What I cannot get over is that it is just ludicrous that you cannot get the same access in the city as we enjoy in the country.

We have become very much a 24-hour society. Long gone are the days of nine to five. It just does not work like that anymore. Why is it okay for people in the country to work those longer hours but not for people in the city? It is just absurd that these shop trading hours are butchered all about the state with different rules depending on where you live. As previously mentioned, Hungry Jack's, McDonald's, the Peregrine group and the Shahin family, who operate On The Run, are open 24 hours a day and employ 2,800 people in this state. It sounds as though the Labor Party are not very happy with the Peregrine group, but I think they are just happy with them when it suits them.

I want to acknowledge the work Sam Shahin and Peregrine are doing in my electorate at Tailem Bend, building a motorsport park and investing at least $100 million in support of motorsport in South Australia. It will be a huge boon for the area in my electorate around Tailem Bend, Murray Bridge, Langhorne Creek and the rest of the Murraylands and Mallee, and the pit straight buildings are being built as I speak. It was good enough for the government to support them with a grant of about $7½ million to help establish that facility in my electorate, but here they are today slamming, indirectly, the very corporation that has their operations open 24 hours a day.

I want to reflect on what happens in these big Woolworths and Coles supermarkets and also in the Big Ws, which are obviously related to Woolworths, that the member for Kaurna hates. It is interesting to note that Bill Shorten himself, the federal Leader of the Opposition, was the one who negotiated the enterprise bargaining arrangements to rob those workers of millions and millions of dollars, and that is a simple fact. He was also the one who set up the Fair Work Commission. He also set up the review, and the terms of reference for the review of penalty rates under the Fair Work Commission, to take it away from politics, to take it outside political influence.

But when a decision comes back that does not suit Bill Shorten and the Labor Party they do not like it. They put ads in our local papers that are lies and absolutely false and talk complete untruths about Malcolm Turnbull and our federal Liberal colleagues and their influence over the Fair Work Commission. There is no influence by our federal Liberal colleagues. Labor speak with forked tongue and we will see plenty of it going into the next election. They say what they like, they say whatever comes to mind off the top of their heads and it does not matter whether or not it is true—do not let that get in the way of a good story. It is a simple fact that Bill Shorten and his crew set up the Fair Work Commission, but when it comes down with a finding they do not like they come out kicking and screaming.

You see how the shoppies (the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association) operate in these big shopping centres. They have obviously done dirty deals with these companies. The daughter of a friend of mine signed up to work at Big W and was told, 'You've got two weeks to tell the SDA that you don't want to be a member.' How outrageous! You have to be a member. You are automatically signed up when you start. To get out of being a union member, you have to let them know. It is not the other way round, where you have to nominate if you want to join a union. If people want to join a union, that is fine, but give them the choice. They should not have to opt out.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: It is exactly what it is. People are locked straight in to become a union member. It reminds me of the blackest three months of my life in the mid-nineties. I did some work as a contractor on the Melbourne to Adelaide rail program that changed the alignment of rail from broad gauge to standard gauge, the Melbourne to Adelaide Rail Standardisation project (the MARS project). To get a job on that line, I had to join a union. As I said, it was the blackest three months of my life because I had to become a union member. I hated it, but I needed the money. I did the work and, thankfully, I only had to buy a short-term ticket, but I would never have done it if I had freedom of choice.

Ms Hildyard: Comrade.

Mr PEDERICK: That's right—comrade. I had to become a comrade because that is how the comrades run it. That is the comrades: 'Run up the red flag. Let's all work together. Let's all goose step one by one and work together. Let's do that, all the comrades together.' That is exactly what it is and that is exactly what is going on when people work for Woolworths, Coles and Big W. They are automatically made a comrade. They do not have that freedom of choice and it is absolutely outrageous. People in this state should have the freedom to choose whether they want to join a union. If people want to join a union, that is great if that is what they want to do, but it takes away that whole freedom of choice.

Getting back to the motion, it is an absolute joke that we cannot have shop trading hours opened up here in the city. To talk about the independents not being able to operate is just ridiculous. Two IGAs operate in Murray Bridge, there is a Foodland in Tailem Bend and they all operate fine. There is an IGA in Mannum as well that operates fine with these four big supermarkets owned by Coles and Woolworths either in the same town or not far away. It is a complete farce that these smaller companies will be bulldozed out. They know how to operate in that environment, they have done so for years in the regions and they will continue to do so.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (11:24): I also rise to speak in support of this amended motion and, like the member for Kaurna, I am really glad to have the opportunity to do so. As the amended motion states, it is absolutely right that we acknowledge and, indeed, greatly celebrate the work of our union movement in upholding the wages, the working conditions and the fundamental rights of South Australian workers, that we support the continuation of current shop trading hours and that we vehemently oppose the recent decision to cut penalty rates for retail and hospitality workers.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as you very well know, our union movement has a long and proud history, a history of daring to struggle to win what is fair and what is right, a history which dates back to the convict strike of 1791 and a history which dates back to James Straighter who, in 1822, was sentenced to 500 lashes, one month of solitary confinement on bread and water and five years of penal servitude for 'inciting his Masters' servants to combine for the purposes of obliging him to raise the wages and increase their rations'.

It is a history of bringing together working people in South Australia—people who are the union movement, people whom those opposite enjoy attacking every time they talk about the union movement—to secure dignity and respect at work, decent and secure jobs, jobs that you can count on with decent pay and conditions, their rights at work and the future of their industries. This is a history that should be absolutely celebrated.

It is a history that in 1844 saw the reduction of working hours for the lowest paid from 14 to 12 per day. It is a history deeply intertwined with South Australia winning the right for women to vote in 1894. It is a history that in 1907, after an enormous struggle by those workers who make up and who are the trade union movement that those opposite are so quick to vilify, saw the minimum basic wage established.

It is a history that saw 200 Aboriginal workers on Cummeragunga Reserve combine in 1939 and walk off the job in protest at the appalling conditions at work and in life on the reserve. In 1941, our union movement successfully fought for one week of annual leave and in 1972 our union movement established the principle of equal pay for equal work through its second equal pay case, finally ensuring that women and men who undertook the same job attracted the same pay. In the lead-up to 2012, and in 2012, I was proud to campaign alongside 200,000 community and disability workers, who support our most vulnerable citizens, to secure equal pay for them and to extend this principle.

There is so much more to celebrate in terms of the history of ordinary Australians getting together as members of their union to make a difference. We should celebrate the hundreds of thousands of workers, the face of the union movement, who stood together when the Patrick Corporation undertook an illegal restructuring of their operations for the purpose of increasing the productivity of their workforce. It was a dispute that involved Patrick Corporation, with the support of the friends of those opposite, the federal Liberal government, locking workers out of their workplace in the middle of the night at Webb Dock after the restructuring had taken place.

We should also celebrate the hundreds of thousands of workers from every profession in our nation who stood together as a union movement to defeat the first raft of anti-worker legislation from the federal Howard Liberal government in 1999, and the second in 2007, which attempted to rip away protections for unfair dismissal, to reduce entitlements and to remove the safety net that protected the most vulnerable workers in our community.

The union movement's proud history is one to be celebrated. It is steeped in values—values that have underpinned our fights to deliver long service leave, penalty rates, public holidays, maternity and paternity leave, annual leave, health and safety laws, superannuation and so much more. I am deeply proud to have played my part in this history in furthering these values and I am deeply proud that our South Australian Labor government shares these values because these values are about empowering ordinary working people to be treated with dignity and respect when they are treated unfairly, when they are given no notice of dismissal, when they are sexually harassed at work or underpaid—things that still occur today.

These values are about empowering ordinary workers to have secure work, to be able to balance time with their families and to be able to secure those provisions across their industries that are fair, and they make a difference to their lives at work and with their family. Just last weekend, I was proud to stand with many of these union members at our annual May Day March. I am always, and will always be, proud to stand with community members who talk with me about poor treatment at work, treatment which leaves them with little dignity. I am proud when they are helped by their union office to have that respect and dignity restored.

On May Day, I was proud to stand with the thousands of early childhood educators, including those from the Noarlunga Community Children's Centre in my electorate, who, through their union, United Voice, are standing together as union members through their Big Steps campaign to achieve equal pay for the incredible and inspiring work they do: work with our youngest South Australians, the future leaders of our communities, work to keep those young community members safe, work that sees our young people grow and develop physically, mentally and emotionally well, and work that must be better valued.

It is shameful that those opposite do not support workers like those. These are the workers who are the union movement and when these workers, these union members, influence the policy decisions of our state Labor government, I am glad because it is their values, the values of fairness, dignity and respect, that our party does support and that our party will always stand for. It is these values that I proudly bring to this parliament, as do many of my colleagues.

This original motion, and the message from those opposite and from Malcolm Turnbull's federal Liberal government, is not steeped in those values. Their position on penalty rates indicates a complete lack of values, a complete lack of understanding and lack of care about the impact on the wages, family life and livelihood of many low paid workers, should their penalty rates be threatened in any way. That is why we fundamentally reject the current proposition to slash penalty rates and reduce the pay of the lowest paid workers in our community.

Penalty rates are a fundamental part of a strong safety net for Australian workers, enabling low income workers and workers in highly casualised industries to share in our economic prosperity and to be compensated for precious time away from their families. Penalty rates are designed to compensate individuals who are working antisocial hours.

We still live in a society shaped by the traditional working week, and many of those in business and in the federal Liberal government who are supporting cuts to penalty rates do not have offices that open late at night or on weekends when community workers in DV shelters, youth shelters and in emergency counselling services, hospitality workers, retail and tourism workers, nurses, those in aged-care facilities and disability services, emergency service personnel and countless other workers turn up for their shift when so many others are spending time with friends and family outside the workplace. They deserve to be paid well.

Those who give us their public holidays, their Sundays and their evenings deserve to be compensated for that sacrifice. This is also why we support the continuation of current shop trading hours. As has been said, those opposite are pushing to extend opening hours without consultation with our community and certainly without adequate regard for these workers and their families. In my time as South Australia and Northern Territory secretary, and as an organiser in the Australian Services Union, I fought alongside workers, union members who are the union movement, to maintain their pay and conditions. This struggle often revolved around what hours would be worked and what compensation was appropriate for working particular hours.

I spoke with the people I was representing and they told me what was important to them. Often, it was getting home in time to read a bedtime story, being able to attend children's sport on a Saturday or Sunday morning, being able to attend shared family lunch on a Sunday or spend time with friends on a Friday night. I know that these ideas will resonate with members in this place because, as has been said, so much of our South Australian community life is still structured around the Monday to Friday, nine to five working week. Those who do not work in that way must be compensated.

As part of the union movement, I worked, and will continue to work, with so many dedicated colleagues, passionate about promoting workers' rights and ensuring that everyone is treated fairly. The labour movement, the union movement, is proudly filled with many diverse voices, whether that be the representative at an early learning centre who is on the front line advocating for improved conditions for their workmates or the union member who works as a school support officer, serving food in a restaurant, as a firefighter, in a bar, as a careworker, in a vineyard or as a nurse, and I am proud to work as part of a movement with them.

These voices are part of a strong and united movement, a movement which, for more than 200 years, has stood up for fairness, a movement which stands between people being treated poorly and ensuring that they are treated with respect. I hope those voices influence our party for many years to come. I look forward to continuing to work as part of our union movement to build a socially just, productive and economically sustainable South Australia.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (11:34): I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the member for Schubert:

That this house—

(a) notes the extraordinary influences unions (and in particular the SDA) have over policy decisions of the state Labor government; and

(b) supports changes to the Shop Trading Hours Act to allow families in Marion, Noarlunga, Tea Tree Gully, Port Adelaide and Munno Para to have access to similar shopping hours as families in the Adelaide CBD and Glenelg.

It is interesting to hear the government's side of this debate. Not once have they mentioned the unemployment rate in South Australia, which is at 6.7 per cent on trend and 7 per cent seasonally adjusted. We have the highest unemployment rate in the nation and it has been that way for more than two years. For 28 months, in fact, on trend we have had the worst unemployment rate in the nation. It is worse than Tasmania and worse than every other state, and not once have those on the other side mentioned that.

Labor claim they care about people, but they do not care about people at all. They do not care about South Australians. They are just beholden to the unions and that is the fact of the matter.

Ms Hildyard: Who are working people.

Mr WINGARD: I think the member for Schubert outlined it incredibly well.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WINGARD: And, no, I will not be intimidated by heckling from the other side. The government likes to do that. It is a bullyboy tactic that often comes through the unions as well. We know where it comes from. They try to use it in this place and we will not stand for it.

No-one denies that people need to be paid fairly and anything this government says that we are not in lock step with that is absolute propaganda. This government will say that. They will roll out propaganda to the contrary and that is just not the case. We support people. We support opportunities for people and we support choice for people, and that is what this government does not deliver.

Bring to mind again the unemployment rate, where we sit and where this government has taken us. We can look at not only unemployment, which I will talk about in a second, but also the other side of the coin, such as what this government has done as far as Oakden, child protection, the chemotherapy bungle and closing the Repat are concerned. That is what they think about South Australia. All those matters have come to light over the past few years as to how they are operating in this state.

Let's get back to shop trading hours and what our proposal from this side of the chamber will do. Our proposal will create opportunity and it will give choice. Let's have a look at some situations that are almost farcical. The member for Hammond made a really good point. In his area of Murray Bridge, people can shop at all different times and businesses have not closed down and people have not lost jobs. It has not had an impact at all; in fact, it has made for more jobs.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr WINGARD: It has made for more growth, as the member for Hammond points out, and he is 100 per cent right. In the city, I hear about some of the things we have to deal with. Harvey Norman stores in SA have installed roller doors inside their stores because on public holidays they are not allowed to sell certain goods, such as electrical and whitegoods, but they are allowed to sell other goods. We have a roller door inside a store because you cannot buy this today, but you can buy that today. It is absolutely outrageous.

We talked about Murray Bridge. Let's talk about Mount Barker as well where they have unrestricted trading hours, yet stores in Stirling have to close. They are a stone's throw away, but someone can sell and someone cannot. It is ridiculous. Let's go to linen, quilt and pillow stores, like Sheridan. They are not allowed to trade on public holidays, but Ikea and Snooze and stores like that can trade and sell beds, quilts, pillows and linen. How one can and one cannot is just absurd. These are the things that really frustrate people.

By deregulating and opening this up, we will create more opportunities for people. It will allow shops to be open when they can sell goods and products and they will be able to employ more people to come and do that. That is the opportunity that is being created. Some of these opportunities that will be created will be beneficial for some of our most vulnerable. It will give opportunities to allow them to come and work.

The member for Fisher scoffed before when the member for Hammond explained that in certain organisations, when people sign up to work, they are automatically put in the shoppies union. They automatically go in. They are locked in and you actually have to opt out. It is an opt out policy. It is absolutely unbelievable.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down! Our parliament does observe standing orders and the standing orders clearly state that members are entitled to be heard in silence. I will start to warn members, which means question time will become precarious for them. The member is entitled to be heard in silence.

Mr WINGARD: The member for Fisher objects and says it is not true. It is an absolute fact and I experienced it firsthand. My son got a job at Hungry Jack's and he was very grateful for the opportunity. It is a wonderful learning experience for him and it is an absolutely fantastic opportunity. A letter came in the mail and it said that he was automatically signed up to the SDA and I, as his parent, had to phone up and opt him out, otherwise he would stay on as a member and his wage would be docked. It is an absolute fact, and the member for Fisher has to be better versed than that to know what is going on in South Australia if she wants to be a member in this place. It is absolutely absurd.

We are going to open this up and we are going to allow more choice for people. People will be able to buy goods in stores when they want to. Shopkeepers will be able to open when they want to. We hear those on the other side talk about IGAs and Foodlands not being happy, yet when you speak to them about the opportunity to be open Sunday mornings before 11am they think that is a great idea. They would like to be able to sell their goods and services on a Sunday morning before 11 o'clock, and they should be able to do that.

If you wake up on a Sunday morning and you want to get some eggs and bacon, maybe some milk and juice and make breakfast at home, whatever it might be, you should be able to go to the supermarket and buy those products. If the store wants to open and there is a demand there, they should be allowed to open. That will generate more working opportunities for South Australians.

I hark back again to the unemployment rate in South Australia. Those on the other side do not want to talk about it. We have the highest unemployment rate in the nation and have done for more than two years. This is an opportunity to allow more people to work. People want a flexible lifestyle these days. Students and young people, like my children coming through, are looking for an opportunity. If we can help businesses create opportunities to give work to young people, that is a good thing. It is a good thing to give work to anyone.

The other thing that is overlooked on the other side—and we hear a lot of historical talk back to the 1800s and the early 1900s—is that in the modern day online shopping is a very big phenomenon. A lot of money is being spent online and people are shopping online. I had the following experience with my kids just the other day: when they do not have the opportunity to go to any store—if the Marion shopping complex is not open, for example—they will go online and they will shop online. If businesses cannot be flexible in their offerings to people through more open shop trading hours, they will find it harder to operate.

Because of our restricted shop trading hours in South Australia, we have more internet shopping than any other state in the nation. That is a fact in South Australia and we need to create flexibility for our shops to be able to give these offerings and to be in the market. The country is opening up and the world is opening up. We need to make sure that our businesses have every opportunity to sell their goods and wares whenever they can and whenever they want to.

The other side will also talk about penalty rates in this debate on shop trading hours. This has absolutely nothing to do with penalty rates. This has to do with creating opportunities where businesses can open. What disappoints me about the other side of this house is that they do not back South Australians at all. They say, 'This group will be affected, and this group will be advantaged,' but this change will create competition, and competition is a very healthy thing.

As an example, there is a supermarket at the end of my street that sells its wares. There is another supermarket down the road which has invested, developed, increased their output and their produce and they are doing a really good job. I do not go to the supermarket at the end of my street anymore. I go to the one down the road because they have a better offering. They are now putting pressure on the supermarket at the end of my street because, if they do not lift their game, the supermarket that is giving a better offering will get more business. That is competition. It forces people to work harder, do better and create a better service.

My wife went to a Coles supermarket yesterday. I am not sure if anyone else has this concern, but she was in a line and they opened another checkout alongside her. She was next in the line and they took the person off the end of the line. She did not think that was very good service. As a result, she will now go to the local Foodland because they employ more people and they give better service.

There is the opportunity, in competition, that if you provide a better service, provide better produce and provide better products you will get more custom. That is the opportunity we need to create. That is the opportunity people in South Australia are looking for. We cannot keep strangling people and we cannot keep tying people down.

The member for Schubert mentioned the Productivity Commission. That is another great example where they talk about finding ways to make things more productive, to provide better services, better competition and better outcomes, and that is what we need to be looking for. We cannot accept the outcome that we have in South Australia, after 15 years of a Labor government, where our unemployment rate is the worst in the nation. It is just not good enough.

Allow people to open Sunday mornings, allow people to open on Boxing Day. Boxing Day is the biggest day in the nation when sales go through the roof. Marion shopping centre is not allowed to open on Boxing Day. It is too restrictive. Small shop owners there want to be able to make money on Boxing Day, they want to employ people on Boxing Day, but this Labor government does not want people employed. They are happy to see us at the bottom of the table when it comes to unemployment. We really are the laughing stock of the rest of the country.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (11:44): I was not going to speak on this motion, even though it is a very good motion, until the member for Kaurna got to his feet and made me reflect. I saw the member for Kaurna and I thought, 'What's the member for Kaurna doing on his feet?' Then I thought about the member for Kaurna and how he has his position in this house. Then it dawned on me that the member for Croydon, the member for Ramsay, the member for Playford, the member for West Torrens, the member for Newland, and indeed, the member for Kaurna, the member for Little Para, the member for Elder, the member for Taylor, the Hon. Tung Ngo in the other house, and the next leader of the Labor opposition, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, all owe their position in this parliament to the SDA.

They all started there. It is the single most dominant union in this chamber. Those members ride roughshod over all the other members of parliament on the Labor side. Of course, on top of the SDA having an enormous number of affiliated members sitting in the house, they have given about $1.8 million to the Labor Party since 2007. This is a union whose purpose is not to look after the worker, it is not to defend workers rights: it is to look after the rights of ALP members and to be used as a vehicle to get elected into parliament.

It is not me who says that the SDA has lost its way in terms of its representation of workers. We have seen it in recent years with all the deals that the SDA has cut with big employers. I will quote from the meatworkers union—which of course is the union that the Independent Deputy Speaker belongs to—publication of 31 May 2016 entitled, 'Bad deal gets the boot: Fair Work Commission slams Coles/SDA dodgy deal'. It states:

David has beaten Goliath again today, with the Fair Work Commission upholding the Meat Workers Union and young Coles worker Duncan Hart’s claim that Coles and the SDA deal ripped off Coles retail workers.

Duncan and the AMIEU have been working together as part of a full-bench appeal against Coles and the SDA...that the new deal cooked up by Coles and the SDA will leave workers worse off—up to $15,000 a year...

This is the great union that defends retail workers to the hilt, yet the Fair Work Commission said the deal that the SDA has struck with Coles, in this case, has left workers up to $15,000 a year worse off. The publication goes on to say:

We are extremely pleased to announce that the Fair Work Commission has upheld that claim and ordered Coles to do better.

Describing the loss of income under the dodgy SDA deal as 'significant', the Fair Work Commission expressed their worry that Coles employees who 'work primarily at times which attract lower penalty rates' would be worse off.

The article then describes the way the SDA has been cutting deals with McDonald's at the same time, with its workforce, where the SDA has traded away penalty rates for employees at McDonald's. In another publication that I have been reading, The Socialist, the magazine of the Socialist Party (Australia), an article from 17 August 2016 states:

SDA in cahoots with bosses

Domino’s Pizza has been caught out underpaying its workers by $32 million a year!

This is because its workers are not being paid penalty rates for late-night and weekend shifts. Unfortunately, the...(SDA) has been complicit in this scam.

The SDA did a sweetheart with Domino’s which saw the company increase its profits by 25 per cent at the expense of its workers. Domino’s CEO...has asserted that the company will not start paying more ahead of a new agreement because it would 'set a precedent'.

...The SDA is a tame cat union that acts in the interests of the bosses. The fact that this organisation is one of the Labor Party’s largest affiliates is a joke, given that Bill Shorten claims to support penalty rates while the SDA consistently sign deals that sell them away.

These are not my words; these are the words of The Socialist, a very fine publication to which I know so many in the Labor Party subscribe. We know the whole notion that the SDA is the great union for the worker is rubbish. I think the member for Reynell is not a member of the SDA. If she really thought it was a good union, she would certainly be a member of that union but she is not. We know that the SDA is no more than a vehicle to elect members of parliament into this house.

We all know that the SDA ultimately takes its cue from Senator Don Farrell, known as 'the Godfather', who at times is very generous with his support and love for the Labor Party. In fact, he is such a generous man that he gave away his Senate spot to the Senate leader Penny Wong, which was a mistake he will never make again. We all know that the patronage of so many members opposite belongs to the SDA, and that is why the SDA exists. It does not exist to look after retail workers: it exists to get people into this parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Croydon is on his feet.

Mr Pengilly: This will be good.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind members of the standing order. I know the Speaker would want me to keep people under control—

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —and I for one will be listening to his every word, member for Schubert. Member for Croydon.

Mr Pengilly: We may be inspired.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Finniss will be leaving us if he is not careful.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (11:50): Madam Deputy Speaker, I should disclose straightaway that I am a member of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association and have been for about 30 years. Before I was a member of parliament, I worked at the SDA, long ago and far away, when it was located on Glen Osmond Road at Parkside.

The thrust of the opposition's criticism of the SDA is its handling of enterprise bargaining. If my memory serves me correctly, enterprise bargaining was introduced by the Hawke and Keating governments, and then it was continued with some relish by the Howard government. As far as I know, the Turnbull federal government continues to support enterprise bargaining and would resist to the death a return to the old system of automatic wage increases. So, it is somewhat contradictory to hear Liberal MPs criticising enterprise bargaining, because essentially that is what they are doing.

Mr Knoll: It is called a no disadvantage test.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: There is of course, as the member for Schubert interjects, inserted by the Gillard government, a no disadvantage or best overall—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Schubert!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —test, but as every union representing workers will know, it is very hard to do an enterprise bargaining agreement that benefits every single worker employed under that agreement because some are full-time and some are permanent part-time working a variety of hours.

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Schubert!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Others are casual. Some are working in the retail industry as night fillers and, therefore, only work the evening and night hours restocking the shelves. My understanding of the enterprise agreements, which the Liberal members today are tactically criticising, is that those enterprise bargains benefited at least 92 per cent of workers working under those agreements.

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Schubert is called to order.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is true that there are some—

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Schubert will be warned for the first time if he moves his lips again.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —there will be some workers who will not be advantaged by the enterprise bargain, but it is in the nature of a rule of law democracy, and it applies to a trade union as well that it tries to drive a bargain that is beneficial to the greatest number of its members. I know that the other trade unions—trade unions other than the SDA—are concerned at the interpretation of the BOOT test because they know that their agreements, rolling up penalty rates and putting them into the base rate, will also be undermined and indeed overturned by this ruling. They know that the same is going to occur for them.

The SDA has always been a union that has relied on conciliation and arbitration on the law. As an SDA organiser, I know that the places I represented industrially, with very few exceptions, were not in a position to go on strike, not in a position to go out on the grass and cripple the means of production and exchange, and therefore we had to rely on the legal system. If that makes us a non-militant union, if that means we do not have the industrial muscle of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, well, that is a fact because we have a different membership that is not in a position to stop concrete pours. We cannot do that kind of thing, so the SDA has to rely on the legal system.

It seems to me tactical, rather than strategic, for the Liberal Party in South Australia to be attacking the enterprise bargaining system, and through it the SDA, in order to make some very short-term political point. Does the Liberal Party really want the enterprise bargaining system to finish up? I do not think it does. I do not think that is its policy. When there is a moderate union that operates within the law, within the enterprise bargaining system, they ridicule it for purely short-term tactical purposes as being a 'bosses' union' or a 'friend of the bosses' union' or a non-militant union. It is a very cynical, short-term approach to politics.

I was astonished to hear the member for Davenport—and this is what prompted me to rise to speak; unusually, because I do not speak very much now that I am the Speaker—quoting The Socialist, the organ of the old Socialist Party of Australia, the pro-Moscow Socialist Party of Australia and now the Communist Party of Australia, a political party with blood on its hands, the blood of millions of people in the Gulag archipelago, the Yezhovshchina—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Finniss is called to order. He is out of his place and he is speaking.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Davenport is called to order.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Here is a son of Poland quoting with approval the attack on moderate unionism by the successors of Joseph Stalin in Australia. That is astonishing cynicism that I cannot allow to go unremarked.

Of course, the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association has always been the butt of the Communist Party's criticism because its leadership was part of the very courageous men and women who in the 1940s and 1950s wrested back control of that union from the Communist Party, an era that prevented communist domination of the Australian labour movement and in particular the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

Back in 1974, with the amalgamation of the unions that went to join the AMWU, it is true that a series of membership agreements were entered into in the retail sector to try to boost the non-Communist side of the labour movement, so it really is a bit odd to hear Liberal Party MPs and people like the member for Davenport, who purport to tell the truth about the role of communism in history, and in particular the role of the Communist Party and the Polish United Workers' Party in the history of Poland, condemn a trade union, one of the early Australian trade unions to have fraternal relations with the Polish Solidarity trade union.

It is a complete rejection of principle and the worst kind of political short-termism to be criticising moderate, lawful trade unionism operating within the enterprise bargaining system according to law.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kavel—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: My understanding of it is that the Turnbull government is moving now to amend the BOOT test so that enterprise bargaining can work as it should for the benefit of management and business, for the benefit of workers and for the benefit of the Australian economy.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorely tempted to move an extension of time because of that severe heckling during the last portion of your speech, Mr Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise the member for Kavel that this morning we have been observing standing orders, which might be foreign to him, but he is not to speak over members on their feet who are speaking.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:01): I will be fairly brief. I do not have anything nearly like the understanding of the history of the union movement that the last speaker has, but I do not think anybody else here does either. I am going to try to insert, from my perspective, a bit of common sense into this. My working history began when I started out as a labourer. I left home at 18 and started working as a labourer and in hospitality as a waiter and behind the bar. That is pretty normal, right? I was very, very lucky—

Members interjecting:

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I was very fortunate—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. No more. Member for Stuart.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I was very fortunate to be able to play professional sport for a few years. That allowed me to go to university. That was the best way I could have ever imagined to work my way through university. I spent a decade after that in a multinational company in the corporate world and a decade after that in private enterprise in the outback, essentially being my own labourer again, digging ditches, serving drinks behind the bar, making beds, cooking hamburgers and trying to be my own plumber and my own electrician—all those sorts of things you do in outback roadhouses.

My story is not special in any way, but it leads me to the very strong view that all people deserve good representation. All people deserve collective representation or at least the opportunity to have it, whether they be employees, employers, trades or industries—everybody deserves that opportunity. However, I am completely opposed to any of those collective representors having undue influence on the market. Of course, they have the right to advocate, the right to inform and the right to negotiate and bargain strongly, but when it comes to undue influence—and this is one of the most important things that the member for Schubert talked about—I am completely opposed to that. In my mind, many unions have undue influence on this parliament. That is something I think needs to change.

With regard to the member for Kaurna changing the motion, that is completely inappropriate too. It is completely inappropriate to have a motion that wants to say that something should be black and to change it to say that something should be white, because we are not even debating now what we started debating. That is completely inappropriate as well. Members opposite talked about the federal government's work with regard to changing penalty rates. It is very important to put on the record that it was the federal Labor government that set up the independent commission that was to make a determination about what should happen to penalty rates.

That independent commission, established by federal Labor, handed down its determination during a federal Liberal government. The federal Liberal government is just continuing that work and saying, 'Okay, whatever this independent commission determined, that's what we will do.' The federal Labor opposition and state Labor government would have us believe that this is all the dastardly work of the federal Liberal government, when of course it is clearly not the case. The commission was set up to operate the way it is operating under the former federal Labor government.

The other thing that is completely false about that is to imply that the federal Liberal government is getting rid of penalty rates. There is not a person on this side of the chamber who does not believe that there are times when penalty rates should be paid. Of course there are times when penalty rates should be paid, but the substance of this motion is saying, 'Let's free up the shop trading hours. Let's allow workers to have greater opportunity to earn penalty rates on more times than they currently do at the moment.'

The member for Schubert is saying very clearly that if people and families want to shop at flexible hours, if businesses want to sell and trade with flexible hours and workers want to work with flexible hours, let them all get on and do it. Nobody is going to be forced to do any one of those things, but let us find the times, let us find the places where it is appropriate for people to have the opportunity to buy, to sell and to work outside the currently reduced regulated operating hours.

Deputy Speaker, as you know, I represent the electorate of Stuart, and the heart of the electorate of Stuart is the regional centre of Port Augusta. We have very light regulation on our shop trading hours. We have Coles and Woolworths, which are open from 7am to 10pm seven days a week. Our economy is not suffering for it and our workers are not suffering for it. The butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker all still have ample opportunity to trade and to thrive. There are other businesses that benefit because of those extended shop trading hours by the bigger organisations.

For example, cafes, service stations and hotels all find that more people are coming to Port Augusta at a wider range of times. When they are there, they are going to those other businesses as well as to the larger businesses that are allowed to trade in a way that they are not allowed to trade in metropolitan Adelaide. So, it can work. Nobody would be forced to work, but it can work. For that reason, I support the motion by the member for Schubert.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (12:07): I will speak very briefly. We will get to the nurses. I will just say this: I am happy to support the member for Kaurna's amendment to the motion. I will just lay out very briefly my position on this. I do not think anyone should have to do work on a Sunday. I do not think I will be able to speak to the nurses motion, so I will take this opportunity to thank those nurses and all our emergency services that do work on a Sunday. There are some very good arguments why emergency and essential services should work on a Sunday or why they do work on a Sunday, and they should get paid substantial penalty rates for it.

But I do not think any unnecessary work should happen on a Sunday at all because I think it is good that there is a day of rest as a society, that we have one day when the economy is not the most important thing, when our society is the most important thing. There should be a day a week when people know they will be able to spend time with their families, they will not have to turn up at work and they will not be pressured to turn up to work.

I should declare right now that I am still a member of the SDA. I have been an organiser for the SDA, and I have seen the pressure that employers will put on employees to do things. Even though there are clauses that state no-one can be forced to do things, pressure can be exerted. Shifts can be withdrawn, especially for casualised labour. That can be seen in the retail and fast-food sector, where young people, working from 15 or 16 years old, hardly know how or even if they are allowed to stand up to their boss. I saw that time and again when I was an organiser working in McDonald's, for instance. I am sure the member for Elder can tell you all about McDonald's and how they operate. I can tell members that there is a lot of pressure on young people to do things that they would not necessarily want to do.

I think it would be wonderful if this society could put the economy aside for one day and have a day a week to itself when only those essential people have to work. I am probably a bit of a dinosaur in this parliament—in fact, it has been proved time and time again, I think, over the last year at least—but I do not believe that there should be much work at all on a Sunday. It does not matter to me whether it is a Sunday or any other day of the week, but there should be a day of the week when we exist as a society, in our families and enjoying relaxation and recreation, as opposed to focusing on the economy, working and everything that goes with it.

Again, I take my chance to thank nurses and other emergency services and essential services workers, those people who work every day of the week at every time of the day because they have to for the good functioning of society. I regret that I will not have a chance to say that later. I strongly support the member for Kaurna's amendment and I oppose the original motion of the member for Schubert.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:10): In rising to rebut some of the comments from members opposite, I think we shall hereafter rename the member for Kaurna Hanrahan, as his speech was entitled, 'We'll all be rooned if we deregulate a few shop trading hours.' That is completely false when we look at, as the member for Stuart talked about, the example that exists in our regional areas where deregulation has already occurred.

Certainly, in my electorate of Schubert, we have a thriving small business sector. In fact, we do not have Coles or Woolies in the Barossa. Small business thrives in regional areas more than it does in the protected shops of the Adelaide metropolitan market. This idea that somehow Hanrahan is coming here to stay is completely false and is borne out to be false by the evidence of regional South Australia.

The member for Reynell talked about sticking up for equality and women's rights. What could be more empowering for women than being able to work at a time that suits them? What could be more empowering for a single mother who cannot work nine to five, who has to look after small children nine to five, who may be able to work nights or mornings because she is able to hand off to family or friends to look after kids at odd times, who would want to work at those times in those hours? How is it bad for women's rights to give them greater opportunity to work at times that may suit them? Again, it is completely hypocritical and completely wrong.

I want to talk about the member for Newland's contribution. Here is a man who would like to move back to the 1950s—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He never moved.

Mr KNOLL: —to a time before colour television, to a time before the end of the 6 o'clock closing of pubs, to a time when moral order was restored in the world and before Vatican II. He talked about workers being coerced to work on the weekend. If you take out 'forced by employers to work on the weekend' and insert 'becoming a member of a union', his comments could be made exactly the same. The SDA, which is legendary for coercing its young, vulnerable casual workers into joining the union, is completely at hypocritical odds with some of the comments that have been made—complete hypocrites.

Do not talk about exploiting young workers when a significant portion of their union membership goes towards funding the Labor Party. It is an absolute disgrace and complete hypocrisy. I will tell you what has changed since the 1950s, member for Newland: the fact that tourism is a massive and important part of our economy. The member for Mawson stands in here spruiking tourism as one of the few saviours of South Australia. Well, guess what? When tourists come here on public holidays and on weekends, they want the ability to shop. Giving them the ability to shop is going to help to attract them here.

The Deputy Premier talks about wanting a vibrant Adelaide. It is more than just lights that can say 'Happy birthday, Steven Marshall' on the side of Bank Street. It has to be about jobs and it has to be about retail trade, and for that example we need to have deregulation of shop trading hours. I reserve my greatest criticism for whatever it is the member for Croydon got up and told us—when he waxed lyrical about the history of the union movement from the dawn of time, when I am sure he was just being born. He basically said that deregulating shop trading hours is going to bring back communism. I look forward to that.

If the Liberals get in and we deregulate shop trading hours, then the communists are coming back in force. I look forward to that DL in marginal seats across metropolitan Adelaide, but it is completely fanciful. It was a beautiful understanding of the internal workings of history, but it was completely at odds with the member for Reynell. She said that the union movement was together and unified, and then the member for Croydon talked about the fact that the union movement has been disunited and at war with itself for decades. It is good to see that he is still fighting those good old fights in his electorate and within the union movement today. It is a beautiful thing. Again, it is complete hypocrisy and a complete lack of unity shown by those members opposite.

In my opening remarks, I challenged those on the other side of the house to say why consumers should not be given choice, why workers should not be given choice and why business should not be given choice, and they failed. All that they have shown this morning has reinforced the fact that they are beholden to sectional interests. On this side of the house, we are here for all South Australians. On this side of the house, we are here for people who want to shop, workers who want to work and businesses that want to open. We will not resile from attacking those opposite for being beholden to the sectional interests that they are, and in the end, as they scurry down their ever-shrinking burrow back to the bottom of the pit, the hypocrisy they show on a daily basis will come to light.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The house divided on the amendment:

Ayes 21

Noes 16

Majority 5

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.