Bills

Holidays (Christmas Day) (No. 2) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 October 2021.)

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (11:21): I rise to speak on this bill and am pleased that the Holidays (Christmas Day) (No. 2) Amendment Bill 2021 is able to be dealt with. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed universally by the house that this is a matter we need to clear up before Christmas this year.

The issue has arisen on a number of occasions over the last 50 years, and I just want to explain what has happened. A Christmas Day that falls on a Saturday and the public holiday declared for the Monday, which is what is currently proposed, subject to the terms of this bill, has occurred on six separate occasions. It happened in 1976 under a Labor government, in 1982 under a Labor government, in 1993—it must have been just before that election, which was memorable—and then again in 2004 under a Labor government and in 2010 under a Labor government.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Here we go. We now have the Leader of the Opposition—or the member for Croydon, as he seems to have lapsed now into this idea that we all get called by our electorates, which is fine. I am happy to address the member for Croydon's proposal, and that is, whilst I accept and I am sure the house would be aware of the experience that the member for Croydon has had in his past life—who can ever forget—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —the Malinauskas-Vaughan deal for holidays? But, in any event, he clearly has some expertise in this area, so he would be familiar, I am sure—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Playford is warned.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —with the extraordinary circumstances in which—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee is warned.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —Saturday happens to overlap with 25 December in each year. He might want to shout out that they all had different matters, but I just make that point that that is the circumstance that has existed. For over 40 years, there have been five separate occasions—

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, leader!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —that I am advised when exactly the same circumstance has occurred. On every occasion Labor premiers, Labor ministers, Labor caucus members and union members, all of them, have accepted the suitability in that situation and treated that for the purpose of the penalty rates and the application of the following Monday.

I can only hazard a guess as to the likelihood of the benefit of that, and that is there are many more people who are likely to be actually at work on the Monday than they are on the Saturday. I might just be imagining that. It might have sounded like a very good idea for the last 50 years. It might have sounded like a very good idea for Labor governments in the past to promote that, to give the opportunity of many more workers to be able to enjoy the benefits of a penalty rate. In any event, I will leave that for those experts. But I just highlight this, because the arrant hypocrisy of the Labor Party in now coming to pretend they want to care about employees on Christmas Day is a level that we have not seen.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Playford is warned for a second time.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It just seems that when the Liberal Party is in government suddenly this model of—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —the provision of balancing the interests of employees who are bound by the terms of their employment—

Mr Szakacs interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Cheltenham is called to order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —to provide services on Christmas Day, suddenly there is a different model that applies but, in any event, I just highlight that circumstance. The second point I make in relation to matters that have been raised is this: is this a good idea anyway given the submissions—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —of those who represent small or medium business in particular have presented the flipside of this; that is, there would be an unnecessary burden in relation to employment? We always in industrial matters have to consider this as a government, as a parliament in the laws we make and I think in the general community as to what is fair in those circumstances. Some of that is determined by legal processes; some of it is something that is promoted. As members know, the Treasurer has responsibility in relation to setting a lot of regulations in relation to these matters but, in any event, this bill is before us to treat it on a statutory basis.

There have been a lot of statements made in relation to public sector workers and the importance of recognising their sacrifice and service on Christmas Day. In fact, on public holidays generally our police, nurses and others are scheduled on a regular basis to provide the 24-hour service, care and protection we all enjoy the benefit of every day of the year, so they are on call in that regard or have been scheduled for that purpose.

I point out that what the Labor government did as a result of an Industrial Relations Commission decision in 1976, and what they have done ever since, was to pay public sector workers such as healthcare workers, emergency workers, police and the like, those who might have to work in residential care in the government sector—all public servants, all public sector workers are paid by the Labor governments (plural) an additional 200 per cent penalty for Christmas Day and that has not changed. That has been there and in place since the decision in 1976.

It is incorrect to say or assert that these public sector workers, if we can address them specifically, were not paid by the Labor government an additional penalty rate in recognition of the fact that they have worked on Christmas Day—and they were paid the extra 200 per cent penalty. The only difference, and I just point this out for the record, was that nurses in an agreement with the government got a 250 per cent penalty rate on the Saturday because they chose to offset that with the 200 per cent on the Monday, so there was a separate, discrete arrangement in relation to the service of our nurses.

I do not make any criticism of this arrangement. It has been going on for 50 years or thereabouts, and that has been an arrangement which has appropriately supported the recognition of the sacrifice and service made by public sector workers on those days. Other public sector workers under governments receive their 200 per cent on a Saturday and a 250 per cent penalty rate on the Monday.

I have referred to the nurses' agreement; can I then just look at the other broad sector. I think this is really to the nub of what is actually being proposed in this legislation, and that is to consider what the situation is for private sector workers, not because it is not something the government pays for—obviously the government is not the employer in those circumstances, but the government is really sending out the money on behalf of taxpayers.

Businesses, the private sector, that employ people on these days are in a different group and they are seeking, essentially, through this legislation to have the benefit on Christmas Day. As I said, the previous model has been to give recognition of this special status on the Monday; the effect of this bill is to move it to the Saturday.

Let's just have a look at what the private sector operators say. These are the small business operators who will need to pay this increased penalty rate. Is it something that they can afford to do? I am sure each and every one of them will make a decision about whether it is viable even for them to open in these circumstances. Some will, some will not, I am sure.

I recall when the Malinauskas-Vaughan deal was done in relation to Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, the direct consequence of that was that a number of small operators just did not open. People did not have a job at all on those days, let alone a chance to get a penalty rate. But the big guys, the big operators, did. The member purports to know, for example, the AHA have these records in relation to—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Mawson is called to order. The member for Cheltenham!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —the big operators continuing to operate during that space because it was something they could afford in relation to the size of the operations they ran. Some of the small operators and, of course, in the retail area for restaurant and catering, that is something on which they have to make that assessment. That is a commercial decision they will make in the event of this bill passing.

In any event, one of the things that has been very clear, and I think the opposition would have had to at least read this even if they had not understood it or been sympathetic to it—I know they have a shadow minister for small business and I have not heard any submission from her on that. She seems to be occupied with other things, but nevertheless, there has been stunning silence from the small business representative in relation to this. I am sure she would have read these submissions because they are very powerful in setting out the circumstance—I am the lead speaker, so I am not sure how much time I have on this.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is private members. Very well, I will deal with it in committee.

Mr SZAKACS (Cheltenham) (11:31): Let's just cut straight to the chase on this. This has nothing to do with the Liberal Party thinking that Christmas Day means something else. It is about what is in the Liberal Party's DNA. It is about cutting wages every chance they get. It is about cutting penalty rates every chance they get. It is about not being happy until workers in small business, in retail, in hospitality, in pharmacy and in fast food are paid less and less because that is the consequence of Liberal Party action. It is not as the Attorney puts it. It is not about this fallacy. It is not about this idea.

We know the Attorney, when it comes to objective and subjective facts, sometimes gets them mixed up. Let's cut to the chase. Penalty rates have been going down in this country since 2017. Why? Because of the Liberal Party. Because the Liberal Party are not happy until workers in low-paid industries are paid less. Sitting on government benches, it is very easy. Let's look at some objective facts here.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Chaffey!

Mr SZAKACS: The take-home pay of a retail worker or a fast-food worker or a pharmacy worker or a hospitality worker on a Sunday, the cuts that they have to face—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr SZAKACS: —are about the same as the member for Chaffey billed the taxpayer for a pair of AirPods. That is the greed of this side of the house. They would rather bill the taxpayer for a bunch of AirPods, never to be used again, and cut the wages of low-paid workers. Grin through one side of their mouth and spit with the other. That is what is at the core of this. It is in the Liberal Party DNA to cut wages and cut conditions of working people.

It should also be no surprise, despite the gasps from those on the government benches, that the party was formed 130 years ago by working people to stand up for this very thing, to stand up for the fact that when you go to work you should come home as safe as when you left, that when you go to work on a weekend, you should be paid and compensated—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Chaffey!

Mr SZAKACS: —for those unsociable hours. There is nothing quite like the hypocrisy coming from the government benches on this matter. I think it was the Leader of Government Business, who is a man of integrity, and I know in a lot of these issues does want to be on the right side of history, but I look actually further back to the backbenchers, those members who have the audacity to bleat and scream about how unfair it is to recognise Christmas Day as a public holiday, whilst billing the taxpayer for living away from home on Christmas Day.

That is all we want, Mr Speaker, and if I may use your words, which were wise and true: we want workers to receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. The consequences of the Liberal Party's actions have seen wages plummet across the last five years because of Liberal Party action that has seen jobs not increase because of penalty rate cuts but in fact decrease. This is, of course, pre COVID.

There is no surprise that every single time a CEO from a large monopoly like Woolworths or Harvey Norman comes out saying, 'If only we cut wages more, more jobs will be created'—it is just rubbish. Every bit of independent study from the Productivity Commission down has shown that as wages have plummeted in this country, as the share of productivity has continued to skew towards big business and as penalty rates on weekends have been cut, no job creation has been seen—nothing whatsoever, none whatsoever.

So members of the HR Nicholls Society on the other side of the chamber might sit in this chamber and use every opportunity they get to cut the wages and conditions of workers, but this Labor Party, this opposition led by the member for Croydon, proudly talks about our history as a party for working people formed 130 years ago for the cause and the fight that we were formed for. That rests as true today as it did then. We will support this. We will stand up for workers on Christmas Day.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (11:36): I rise to indicate that I will be moving an amendment to this bill when it comes through. That amendment will be to remove the Christmas Eve penalty rates and apply them to Christmas Day, because I think I am in agreement with nearly every South Australian that I have spoken to: if you work on Christmas Day you deserve to get paid penalty rates for that day.

In coming to that decision I have not lobbied any members of parliament. I have only had a discussion around this with the member for Waite, who has indicated that he, too, supports this amendment, but he is in a committee and will not be able to give a second reading speech on this. He just wanted me to indicate that. I guess what I am trying to do—and I do not know where the votes are going to lie in this—is get some balance and fairness in this.

I think the SDA do an amazing job. They advocate ferociously and vehemently for their workers, and that is a credit to that union. But there is also another side to this, and that is the business owners, particularly the small business owners, who have done it incredibly tough over the last 20 months with COVID.

I took this very seriously and went and spoke to a number of businesses. The comments to me ranged from, 'With 4½ days of public holidays, 250 per cent, we will take that opportunity and close for that period'—so workers will receive zero penalty rates because they will not be getting paid for those days—through to an acknowledgement by many businesses that if they are going to get staff working on those days they will need to pay more to attract those staff to give up what is one of the most precious family days on our calendar.

So there is a real competitive tension there, and I am really just trying to bring balance and fairness to this. I went and did a little bit of research on what other states do, because I heard this line that we would be the only state in Australia that does not pay penalty rates on Christmas Day. That is, in actual fact, true. But there are a few things that have been left out of that sentence and that argument.

I am just going to go through some of the other states, so if this bill passes unamended what we would be looking at is 4½ days of public holidays, attracting 250 per cent penalty rates over that. There is actually only one other state in Australia that has that current set-up, and that is Queensland, where they pay on the Friday penalty rates, 6pm until midnight, Saturday (which is Christmas Day), Sunday, Monday, Tuesday. If I go through the other states, they only have four days of public holidays over that period of time:

the ACT: Christmas Day (Saturday), Sunday, Monday, Tuesday;

New South Wales: Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday;

the Northern Territory is a little bit of an anomaly as they only have 3½ days: Friday, 7pm to midnight, Saturday (which is Christmas Day), no Sunday, but Monday and Tuesday;

Tasmania: only three days, Saturday, Monday, Tuesday;

Victoria: Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday; and

Western Australia: Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday.

Whilst I certainly acknowledge the SDA's efforts in this to align us with Queensland, which has the most number of days of public holidays and penalty rates over this period, I am trying to seek some balance and bring it back to four days of penalty rates. That would be the Saturday, Christmas Day, which I think every South Australian should believe is the day you deserve penalty rates because you are giving up time with your family; Sunday, obviously the declared public holiday in South Australia; Monday, the declared Christmas Day public holiday; and Tuesday, the declared Boxing Day or Proclamation Day public holiday.

This amendment would only apply when Christmas Day falls on the Saturday. When it falls on any other day, the half-day Christmas Eve penalty rates would apply and will apply into the future. I know that is going to be controversial in some sectors; however, I firmly believe that it achieves the balance of getting paid on Christmas Day versus what is currently the situation where you do not get paid penalty rates for Christmas Day, but you get paid half-day penalty rates for Christmas Eve.

It is a compromise that, as I said, I think is fair and reasonable. Some sectors will not like it, and I accept the argument that there will be people who work Christmas Eve who will not attract penalty rates, and I will cop criticism and flak for that. People should notice that I have not gone the extra step of New Year's Eve half-day penalty rates being taken away. This is solely focused on making sure that those who work Christmas Day get paid the penalty rates because that is the day, in my opinion, that you are giving up time with your family, unwrapping presents, Christmas lunch or Christmas dinner. That is the sacred day to me and I firmly believe that, if you work that day, you deserve to get penalty rates for that day.

It is a compromise. I have not lobbied anybody on this but, to me, it is fair and reasonable and it brings balance to businesses and it gives certainty to businesses that, yes, you will be paying penalty rates if your workers are working on Christmas Day. We will genuinely come into line with most other states where there are four days of public holidays over that period—some states are less but there is only one state, Queensland, that is more. I accept the criticism: why would we go to a lower denominator? Why would we not go to a higher denominator? I absolutely expect that criticism and will take that on board.

I am trying to be fair and reasonable to our business owners as well as our workers who, during the last two years, have done it incredibly tough. I want to see as many businesses open during that festive period so that staff are getting paid and a business does not take the decision to close for the 4½ days and people not receive any wages over that period.

With those words, I acknowledge that I will be moving an amendment to this bill. I am hoping for all people's sake that this matter is dealt with today to give businesses the assurity they need to plan for the Christmas period, which for many businesses will be a very important period to hopefully stay afloat and provide those jobs into next year and the year after due to a bumper festive and holiday season.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome) (11:45): I will be very quick. First, I am glad that we are suspending standing orders to allow debate on this bill to go forward, irrespective of the vote at the end of it, because businesses out there need to understand whether, with their rosters, they are going to have Christmas Day as a trading day and, if they are going to do it, whether they need to pay the penalty rates, whatever they may be.

I was disappointed that at the last sitting of parliament we tried to have this debate but we were not allowed to. That is democratic, but I felt my democratic right to have a bill debated was not being allowed to happen at that particular point.

Let me just say that if anyone has to work on Christmas Day I believe they need to be compensated. Christmas Day, as we all know, is a very precious day for families to get together. There have been occasions in my own family when, because Christmas Day has been on a weekday, because they were shift workers or frontline workers they had to work. They always got the remuneration.

Christmas Day is about family and being able to spend time together. I have indicated before in my press release that if people are not remunerated and compensated adequately I can see lots of people ringing up and being sick on that particular day, which does not help the industry one little bit. It does not help the workers and it does not help the industry.

Because I have committees and briefings on a Monday, I come down on a Sunday night. Only a couple of weeks ago, I went to a food outlet to get something to eat and there was a surcharge of 10 per cent. I have no problem paying that 10 per cent because the fact is those workers on that particular day were getting remunerated and so I am quite happy to pay the extra 10 per cent on that. Nobody complained about it.

Also, the fact is that a lot of people go out. They do not have family at home, so on Christmas Day they may go out with friends to a hotel, a restaurant or wherever it may be. For argument's sake, normally for that particular $60 or $70 lunch on Christmas Day it is always around about $100 or $120. No-one budges on that because everybody understands that if it is on a weekday and it is a public holiday people pay that extra money to remunerate those workers. I have no problem whatsoever.

Let's have the discussion. I hear the member for Mount Gambier's amendment—he has not lobbied me—and I have only just seen what it is going to be. Certainly, I agree that, first up, let's have the debate. Let's have the debate going right through. As has been indicated in this house earlier today, we have 39 days left before Christmas. People out there need to understand where they are going to go. If you have a business, are you going to trade? Have you got rosters out there to fix up? I was in business many years ago. We were 24/7 in my business, therefore we did not have any rosters. We just knew we were going.

We have to allow businesses to get those rosters ready and also for people to plan if they are going to take the day off in lieu for family reasons or whatever it may be, but the businesses will need to understand that. Let's have the debate and get the thing going right through to the end and make a decision one way or the other and let the parliament make the decision.

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (11:49): Obviously, I rise to close the debate. If I may, I will take the opportunity to explain to members, particularly the Attorney-General and Deputy Premier—the current Attorney-General and Deputy Premier—what the arrangements are and why her recital of precedents under former government bears no weight in the circumstance that we are currently in.

I can certainly speak about this with a degree of confidence regarding the 2010 instance, when Christmas Day fell on a Saturday, and there are fundamental differences between the current situation and the one back then. That particularly goes to the relevant industrial instruments that were in place back in 2010 that are not in place today, namely, employees within the fast-food or retail sectors back in 2010 had different industrial agreements that provided for vastly different conditions in respect of public holidays falling on a non-working day or a non-trade day, being Christmas Day on a Saturday.

That is, put more simply, for people working within the retail or fast-food industries in 2010, had their rostered day on fallen on Christmas Day, which was not a public holiday because it was a Saturday, then those industrial agreements provided them with the conditions that would otherwise be the case if it was a public holiday. In other words, they were paid. If you worked on Christmas Day, you were paid penalty rates for it under most of those industrial agreements.

Since then, industrial law has evolved dramatically, principally because of a conservative federal government being in place, completely changing the industrial landscape, thus leaving us in a position where people working on this Christmas Day in South Australia will not get penalty rates for it.

The Deputy Premier rightly points out that, in regard to public sector employees—these are her words—'Their sacrifice will be recognised.' Bravo, but why can that arrangement not be consistent across those people in the private sector as well? If the Attorney-General is of the view, if the Marshall Liberal government is of the view, that someone in the public sector working on Christmas Day should get public holiday penalty rates, how can they possibly be of the view that a retail or fast-food or hospitality worker should not? That inconsistency in position truly beggars belief, particularly in the context of the day we are talking about, namely, Christmas Day.

Let me put it in another context with respect to health workers. Yes, it is true—this is the information that I am advised—that a nurse in a public hospital on Christmas Day will be paid penalty rates, but those penalty rates will not necessarily be as large as they would have been if it was a declared public holiday. More than that, we could have a situation where a nurse in a public hospital is being paid penalty rates but a nurse in a private hospital, doing the exact same work, providing the exact same amount of care and affection for their patients as the public sector worker, does not get penalty rates.

I submit this question to those opposite: on what planet do you live if you think when there are two workers doing the same job, working Christmas Day, making the exact same sacrifice, one should get penalty rates and the other should not, and the thing that determines that outcome is whether or not they are a public sector worker? That is utterly nonsensical. I think the only rational view that one can have in respect to Christmas Day being a public holiday is it should be the same rule for everybody.

We will not be sitting here on Christmas Day working—maybe the member for Hammond will proclaim that he is working on Christmas Day again—but everybody else who is actually working should be recognised for it. In regard to the member for Mount Gambier's amendment, although it is well intentioned, the Labor Party will be opposing that amendment should we reach the committee stage.

The simple reason for that is this: we on this side of the house, in the Australian Labor Party, do not believe we should be taking something away from a working person in order to provide them with the thing they should otherwise get. Why should we say to someone, 'Yes, you can have Christmas Day as a public holiday but you have to give up something for it'? In every other state, in every other territory around the country, Christmas Day is a public holiday and they do not have to give up anything for it. The same arrangement should be in place in South Australia.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

New clause 3A.

Mr BELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bell–1]—

Page 2, after line 15—Insert:

3A—Amendment of section 3B—Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve

Section 3B—after its present contents (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) However, subsection (1)(a) does not apply to 24 December in a particular year if that day falls on a Friday.

The part I am amending is the Christmas Eve, not the New Year's Eve section, and parliamentary counsel believe the best way to do that is to word it in this particular way.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I have a few questions for the member for Mount Gambier. In every other state around the country Christmas Day has been declared a public holiday. That has been done through various instruments, as I understand it, including the declaration of relevant governments, including conservative governments. Other Liberal governments around the country have deemed that Christmas Day should be a public holiday. They have done that without taking anything away from any worker anywhere, anyhow.

The member for Mount Gambier's proposition, should he support the bill in the event the amendment gets up, is that, yes, you can have Christmas Day as a public holiday, but in South Australia we will take something away from you in order for that to occur. My question to the member for Mount Gambier is this: for a low-paid worker cleaning a hospital, why should they have to give something up in order for Christmas Day to be a public holiday?

Mr BELL: I thank the leader for his question. The situation at the moment is that Christmas Day, when it falls on a Saturday, is not a public holiday; therefore, if this bill does not get up, those workers will not receive penalty rates. Yes, it is true that if you are working Friday from 7pm until midnight under this current amendment, when Christmas Day falls on a Saturday you would not be receiving the penalty rates. As I said in my second reading contribution, what I am trying to achieve here is to genuinely bring us in line with every other state in Australia barring Queensland, which does have the Friday 6pm until midnight.

It may be the case that this is the last year when this occurs. If there is a change of government and a change of direction, that may be the clause that sits in there for a very short period of time. Like I said, I am trying to get a balance between the employer and employee. Four days of public holidays over that period brings us in line with every other state or is more generous than every other state except Queensland.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: How many questions am I allowed?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): You get three.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: So I am one down.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): You are one down and you have some mates who can ask for you—just for advice.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I would make this submission before asking a question of the member for Mount Gambier. The member for Mount Gambier refers to the state of Queensland, but he is neglectful in not referencing the Northern Territory, which also has Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve as a public holiday and has also deemed that Christmas Day is a public holiday. I appreciate the member for Mount Gambier's response, but he did fail to articulate why a South Australian low-paid worker has to give something up in order for Christmas Day to be a public holiday.

There is a particular set of statistics that I would draw the member Mount Gambier's attention to, along with the rest of the house. The member for Mount Gambier seeks to reference a balance between employers and employees, which is a principle to which I too subscribe. But I submit to the member Mount Gambier that in South Australia we are not achieving that balance, as is the case in other states, in the context of the fact that wages growth in the state of South Australia is the lowest in the nation. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has reported that the lowest that South Australia—this is today's statistics, I am advised by the shadow treasurer—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Today or—what year?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: This year.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: The last 12 months.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The last 12 months—that South Australia has the lowest annual wage growth in the nation and for the September quarter as well. It has the lowest annual private sector wage increases in the nation, and CPI in Adelaide is at 2.5 per cent, yet wages growth is at 1.8 per cent. In other words, in the state of South Australia, under the current mob, what is happening to real wages in this state? They are going down.

Right now, workers in the state of South Australia on average are having their wages cut; they are already going backwards. My question to the member for Mount Gambier is this: if wages are going backwards, why is he so determined to ensure that they go further backwards by taking something away just so that workers can have a bloody public holiday on Christmas Day?

Mr BELL: I will take that as three-quarters statement and one-quarter question, but I will answer it in the final way. The leader talked about the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory has Friday 7pm until midnight—that is correct. I did neglect to say that because the Northern Territory has Saturday as a Christmas Day public holiday, but nothing for Sunday—no public holiday rates for Sunday. Yes, it does have public holiday rates for Monday and Tuesday.

So if we compare the Northern Territory with South Australia, the Northern Territory sits at 3½ days over that Christmas period being paid public holidays. What this current bill seeks to achieve in South Australia is 4½ days of public holidays over that period of time.

In terms of broader economics and wage growth, that is not what this bill is addressing, in my opinion. Public holiday penalty rates on Christmas Day is the point that the union has been pushing and there have been plenty of leaflets going into my letterboxes in the seat of Mount Gambier and plenty of people standing out the front of my office talking about making Christmas Day—and I reaffirm that: Christmas Day—the day that attracts penalty rates.

I agree with that, and to get my support for Christmas Day being 250 per cent penalty rates this amendment is a fair and reasonable compromise, in my opinion. That is only my opinion: the house will decide whether there is an amendment that it wants to support. Wage growth and the trajectory that South Australia is on is a bigger macro issue, but we are here today talking about this amendment in this bill.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): Leader, have you got another question? That will be your third. I am just trying to help, sir.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The act of making Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve public holidays was opposed by the Liberal Party at every turn of events.

Mr Bell: And the AHA.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes, and the AHA. The AHA has a formidable record of winning most arguments that it gets into. That is one they lost, and I certainly wear that as a badge of honour, which I am very glad to tell my friends at the AHA about on a regular basis. The Liberal Party opposed the creation of Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve public holidays and since then the rest of the nation has been following suit and of course this is a tradition that is well established in our country. South Australia has often led the charge for the provision of beneficial industrial arrangements for workers on a range of reforms, including areas like long service leave.

It would seem to the opposition that it would be a wholehearted retrograde step to take away a condition from a working person in order for them to get what they should otherwise deserve, and I simply implore the house to vote against this amendment and then support the bill. If this amendment fails, the simple question before the parliament will be: should Christmas Day be a public holiday, yes or no? If the amendment succeeds, the question changes and it becomes: should Christmas Day be a public holiday if we take something away from a low-paid worker?

Nowhere else around the country has that occurred. We do not think South Australia should go down that path. We think that we should take the high road. Real wages are going down. Workers are facing the prospect of inflation without wages keeping pace. Now more than ever, this parliament should not seek to provide workers an additional entitlement—no-one is suggesting that. We are simply arguing that workers should get what every other worker around the country is getting—Christmas Day being a public holiday—without having to give something up for it.

The house needs to think very carefully and thoughtfully about the notion that workers in this state can only get what they are entitled to if they give something up for it in an environment of real wage decline, because that takes us down a low road, a path of lower wages at a time of record profits. My contention is that that then underpins grave instability in what otherwise would be a fair marketplace for labour in this country.

It beggars belief that, at a time when we have an extraordinary number of people in hospitality and retail who have made massive sacrifices for our state in the name of our safety during COVID, our recognition of that is to try to take something away from them. How many times have each of us in this place given speeches over the course of the last 18 months lauding the efforts of hospitality, lauding the efforts of retail?

When everyone around here was going home when we suspended standing orders and shut down the parliament during lockdown, the retail workers were fronting up. Retail workers are absolutely flogging themselves in distribution centres, dealing with unprecedented loads. I know that not many people in this place, myself included, have done a full day of picking in a distribution centre in their life, but I can tell you that it is pretty hard yakka at the best of times, let alone when you have unprecedented demand. Then, in the supermarkets, when we were all leaving here—

Mr BELL: Point of order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am coming to the question.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): Point of order. Leader, can you just take your seat, please.

Mr BELL: Relevance: it is starting to sound like a third reading speech. I am just wondering where the question is.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): I am sure the leader is getting to a question, the member for Mount Gambier. He does have a few minutes playing out so, leader, I would like you to get to the nub and ask a question to the member for Mount Gambier.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In the supermarkets, when we were all splitting during the course of lockdown, shop assistants were rolling up and dealing with the longest queues they had ever seen in their lifetime, back down to the back of the store, dealing with customer after customer after customer, not knowing what the arrangements were and, at that point in time, no-one was vaccinated. That was the sacrifice they were making.

Now what the parliament is going to do, if we support the member for Mount Gambier's amendment, is say, 'You know what? Thanks for all that hard work. Now we want you to give up something on Christmas Eve.' What an absurd proposition. My question to the member for Mount Gambier is this: how can the member for Mount Gambier go into his local Woolies or Coles and face a retail worker and say, 'Thanks for the sacrifice that you made during COVID. Now I would like you to give up some penalty rates on Christmas Eve'?

Mr BELL: I guess to bring this argument to a conclusion, as it currently stands people who work Christmas Eve will get paid penalty rates. People who work the Sunday will get paid penalty rates, Monday and the Tuesday, but, as it stands, nobody will be getting the penalty rates for the Saturday. What this bill is aiming to do is bring penalty rates to Christmas Day which is exactly what I support. That is the important day. That is the day when people are with family, friends, missing out on the lunch, the dinner, the family unit coming together.

It is my opinion that this is a fair and reasonable amendment to achieve what we want to achieve, and that is have Christmas Day as the day that attracts penalty rates. I remind people that this could have been addressed any time between 2010 and today. With 39 days to go, a piece of legislation is aimed to come into this house, that will fundamentally change the costs associated with Christmas Day. Business owners have already planned that day with cost structures. I think the amendment in my name draws a very strong distinction that Christmas Day is the day that deserves penalty rates and that is what I am aiming to achieve.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I refer to the member's amendment to introduce a provision affecting the Christmas Eve penalty rates and indicate that I have appreciated listening to the questions raised in the motion proposed. The argument that this is, in some way, to compromise a circumstance to be consistent with the rest of the country, debated by the member for Croydon as being not inconsistent or failing in that regard, is one which I always find interesting.

It is a little bit like the argument when someone says that land tax in South Australia is higher than anywhere else in the country, but if you do not look at all the other taxes that apply then of course sometimes the arguments between the property proponents and those seeking to buy a house become somewhat thin.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: However, I note the mover's indication that he has done the research and is looking to a circumstance where, if one does some comparison around the country, a 4½ day provision is not equitable on the balance that the mover has outlined. That is, you have considered the submissions and, no doubt, local businesses in your own electorate together with the submissions made by representatives, namely, the unions of those who face employment sometimes in a mandatory situation where they are scheduled to work, and the competing claims in relation to that. We on this side of the house respect that, and I think there has been some consideration made in that contribution.

I also note that sometimes these types of proposals do have trade-offs. It seems to have escaped the memory of the member for Croydon that, when he and Mr Vaughan did a deal in relation to Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, in fact there was a trade-off about public holiday trading in the city. He seems to have forgotten that bit, but that is fine.

Mr Malinauskas: No, I remember that well.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): Order, leader! The Attorney is on her feet.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: And it may have been a good trade, I do not know; I was not part of the negotiation on that.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I just make the point that those things do occur and it is not always easy to compare apples with apples with these, but I think the member has done a mighty job in assessing that, also taking into account the sometimes significant dilemma of the cafe, restaurant, retail and catering groups who are through their submissions placing on the record their plight.

The small and medium business has fewer than 19 employees. It is a group that employs something like 42,000 South Australians. It will ultimately be the decision of those employers as to whether or not they open either the whole or part of the four days that we are talking about, on which there has been some expansion in this bill. I therefore indicate that I appreciate the mover's consideration of this matter. In the circumstances, I think that is a sensible resolution for the house to adopt, and I indicate that we will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I would like to make a few comments. I know that in his commentary, the member for Mount Gambier is trying to be fair and also find a balance in this issue, and I believe him when he says so, but I would disagree—he does not actually achieve that through the amendment. I provide two scenarios that demonstrate that it creates a net loss to workers. The first scenario is where the worker would currently work on Christmas Eve but not work on Christmas Day. They would be worse off.

Mr Malinauskas: Good point.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: They actually are worse off. You have two groups and what you are saying is that one group will get more and one group will get less, which I think is always bad public policy. I think the assumption is that the person would be working both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, but that is not true. You have one group of workers who have to pay for the benefit of the other workers, and I do not think that is fair. Given the economic circumstances we have been in and what we have heard about in wages growth over the last X number of years, to ask one group of workers to actually accept a pay cut in this time is wrong.

Also, the member talks about trade-offs. This is not a trade-off because trade-off often means to a net benefit. This is actually a net loss to workers. One group of workers will be worse off and overall there would be a net loss. For those reasons, I will not be supporting this amendment. I accept that it is well intentioned, but it does not achieve the outcome that it desires in terms of a fair and balanced outcome. It means that workers get less and I will not support that.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Ayes 23

Noes 19

Majority 4

New clause thus inserted.

Remaining clauses (4 and 5) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (12:27): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

It is incredibly disappointing that we have had a number of members now cast their vote so as to take conditions away from working people in the state of South Australia.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Acting Speaker.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): Point of order. If you could take your seat please, leader.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member for Croydon does know he cannot reflect on a vote in this house.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): Order!

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): Order, member for Mawson! Leader, if you want to continue your remarks and keep to the nub of the bill please.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Well, the bill now is in a very different format from the one that arrived in the House of Assembly. Of course, the bill in its original format provided for Christmas Day to be a public holiday for every South Australian. Now, under its current format, Christmas Day would be a public holiday for every South Australian, but indeed for those people who were working on Christmas Eve they are now worse off.

So to say that that is a poor outcome is, in the view of the Labor Party, a grave understatement. The parliament is now in an invidious position. The parliament is now in an invidious position where it has to choose between Christmas Day and Christmas Eve. So now we have a situation where workers now have to face off with each other. The bill now leaves us in a—

Members interjecting:

Mr MALINAUSKAS: And the Attorney-General thinks she is clever.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Liberal Party think that somehow they have come up with an alternative arrangement, some slippery manoeuvre—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): Order! Point of order. Could you sit down, please, leader.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member is again traversing and reflecting poorly not on our side of the house but indeed on the member for Mount Gambier for having the audacity to move an amendment. We have voted on that. It is now a matter—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): Order! The Attorney is on her feet.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is a reflection on the vote—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): Hang on! I will rule on the first point of order first.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —and to suggest that there is some kind of slippery deal is just outrageous. I am offended and I seek an apology.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): There is a point of order on the point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This is a third reading debate. We have just had the committee stage where changes have been made to the bill. It is entirely reasonable and in accordance with the standing orders for us to be able to reflect on what has just come out of the committee stage in order to summarise the bill. This is merely an attempt by the Deputy Premier to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition in attempting to legitimately give his views during the third reading of the debate. If anyone should have a point of order raised against them, it is the repetitive interruption from the Deputy Premier.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): I just call on the leader to keep progressing with his remarks.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. So now we have a situation in South Australia where, should this bill pass, there is going to be a group of workers who are happy that Christmas Day once again will be a public holiday in South Australia. But then there is going to be another group of workers, if this bill passes, who will go home tonight and say, 'You know what? We're going to get less pay this Christmas.' I have to say that I am genuinely stunned that we have now reached such a grave low in this parliament that we are not just robbing Peter to pay Paul, but we are doing it on Christmas Eve.

I would have members of the Liberal Party know that a number of their constituents work in the evening. People work on Friday nights, particularly those who work in hospitality. Christmas Eve is a particularly busy night of the year, and on Christmas Eve there will be those people going to work while other people are packing up and wrapping the presents and putting them underneath the tree. They are at work, and now as a consequence of this bill potentially passing those people are going to be worse off.

I genuinely do not know why the house has resolved that the question has to be put to South Australians to choose between looking after workers on Christmas Eve or looking after workers on Christmas Day. I think that is an ultimately false economy, and again I stress the point that currently in the state of South Australia real wages are in decline.

So if you are one of those workers who has seen your wages not keeping pace with the cost of your groceries and you are trying to wonder how to put presents under the tree, if you are trying to work out what sacrifices you are going to have to make this Christmas because your wages are going down in real terms, now you have to contemplate why your wages are going to be even worse off again because of a decision to take away penalty rates on Christmas Eve. It is an utterly extraordinary position.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Given the circumstance that we now find ourselves in, between the houses clearly work will have to be undertaken by the Australian Labor Party, amongst others, to contemplate what we do in the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council may have the wisdom to determine that this amendment should not be agreed to and that workers should get Christmas Day as a public holiday without having to make a retrograde step on Christmas Eve.

That may well be what the other place determines. That will be under their consideration in due course, but we will nonetheless give them that choice. We do believe in the Australian Labor Party that Christmas Day should be a public holiday, so we will continue to advocate for that plainly. We see the progression of this bill through this house up to the Legislative Council as being the best means to achieve it, but we will be campaigning on this issue.

We will do everything we possibly can to ensure that every member of the South Australian community knows how their MP votes in respect of Christmas Day, how their MP votes with respect to Christmas Eve. I would not want to be a member of parliament, I have to say, who has to go back to my electorate over the course of the next 39 days, between now and Christmas, and say, 'I believe Christmas Eve workers should be worse off.' Clearly, the member for Newland and the member for King have a different view, which they are entitled to have. It is a democracy.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): Order! Quiet on my left, please. There is a point of order from the Minister for Education.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It is contrary to standing orders to reflect on a vote of any individual member.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): I uphold that point of order. If you can get back to the nub of the question, leader. Leader, continue your remarks, please.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am more than happy to come back to the substance of the point, which is that we will do our level best in this democracy to ensure that every voter can make an informed choice. They can choose between candidates who believe that Christmas Day and New Year's Eve should be a public holiday and those who do not. It is that simple. That campaign is coming. This will not be allowed to pass without vigorous debate within local communities.

The Labor Party will allow the progression of this bill and then, of course, we will wait to see how the Legislative Council contemplates the amendment. Nonetheless, I have to say that I want the record to reflect that every last member of the Australian Labor Party on this side of the house believes that Christmas Day should be a public holiday without taking anything away, that every last member of the Australian Labor Party on this side of the house stands with retail workers, fast-food workers, DC workers, hospitality workers, nurses, doctors and cleaners in hospitals, and we will continue to fight for you to ensure that you get what you deserve.

You have made extraordinary sacrifices during the course of COVID. We do not just pay lip-service to that sacrifice: we want to honour it by making sure that Christmas Day is a public holiday. We will maintain that argument not just in this parliament but in the next. We will ensure that your voice is heard and that we honour our obligation to you during the course of the election campaign and the proceeding debate that will occur.

I think it is a great shame that there are members of this house who talk about the sacrifice that those workers have made and then do nothing to reward that sacrifice except take away things on Christmas Eve, of all things. It is an extraordinary proposition but one that we now face, and we will confront it as we have in the best traditions of the Labor Party in the course of not just the last 3½ years but, rather, the last 100-plus years.

Bill read a third time and passed.