Bills

Public Holidays Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms SAVVAS (Newland) (20:07): I am proud today and every day to wake up in the morning and know that I commit my life to defending the rights of working people. At 14, I had my first job at Para Vista Pizza Hut, a place I loved working. I very much got my independence at Pizza Hut. I came from a family without a lot of money, and I remember all too well taking my first pay cheque to Tea Tree Plaza and spending an entire pay cheque on clothes for the first and probably not the last time, I must admit—I know, a surprise to everyone in the chamber.

I know what that independence meant for me. In the final months when I was working at Pizza Hut, unfortunately I was not getting paid correctly, but I was a member of my union. I did not know then just how significant that union would be to me in my life or the role that I would come to understand that it would play in the lives of retail, fast-food, and warehousing workers around this country. But I do know that before I was a member of the Labor Party, at a young age, I was a member of my union: the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, a group that has defended the rights of working people in this state for decades.

I did hear from members across the floor about this bill being an SDA conspiracy—I believe they referred to it as such when the Treasurer was speaking. I am very proud to say that I am not just a member of the SDA but a member of the FSU and the ASU as well. I am a proud union member of multiple unions. Of course, any conspiracy that may be occurring on behalf of a union is not just for members of a particular union, and I am very, very proud to be a member of three.

It was, of course, the union movement and my union, the SDA, that bothered to stand up for small businesses in this state when their trading hours were under attack, when the economy in this state was under attack, when farmers and independent grocers were under attack, because we have the balance right in South Australia. We have the balance right with trading hours in our state, and our state only, because here independent grocers have the ability to exceed in the market.

Our unique trading hours model in SA is one of the reasons we have the most competitive supermarket sectors in the country, and it gives small businesses like the independent grocers here in SA the opportunity to compete against Woolworths and Coles. The proposal to deregulate trading hours in this state put that at risk, and we saw that when independent grocers, farmers, small businesses and retail workers all campaigned against those changes and against Rob Lucas's decision and, of course, ended up voting him out.

I think it is important that we correct the record just generally in terms of enterprise bargaining in this state. There were a few comments made by the union buster himself, the member for Unley, a moment ago about enterprise bargaining in this country. He clearly does not have a clear understanding of the way that enterprise bargaining works here in Australia, and his statement that there is a massive difference between SDA enterprise agreements between a 150 per cent penalty rate and a 50 per cent loading rate is, of course, not true because they are in fact exactly the same thing. A 50 per cent loading rate on top of a regular rate is exactly the same thing as a 150 per cent penalty rate.

Of course, the SDA and all unions in this country are bound by decisions like the BOOT decision and the Coles decision, which means that all workers in an enterprise agreement must be better off under the enterprise agreement that that union puts up—everyone, every single person. As a former SDA official, I know for a fact that the SDA do not have a single EBA with Sunday rates below the award—not one. It is important context.

It was alongside the SDA that I fought against the Marshall government's cruel, out of touch decision to refuse to close the loophole in 2021 when Christmas fell on a Saturday. I, too, have been a low-paid worker. I have worked my fair share of weekends. I have worked in hospitality and fast food, and relied on my penalty rates to get by. I have also at times been raised by low-paid workers, workers who rely on penalty rates, workers who have to give up time with their families on occasions when others—higher paid workers—are at home.

Our government are here with this bill not only to close that loophole but to ensure that Christmas Day is a time that is valued. On this side of the house we know how much individuals value Christmases and Easters at home with their families. Christmas is a time to be with family, and if you are working on that day I truly believe that you do deserve penalty rates. I value those people who work on holidays; I really value them. I heard it on the doors, I heard it at Tea Tree Plaza, I heard it in local pubs and at local shops, and I heard from workers in 2021, when Christmas Day was not considered a public holiday, that they did not feel valued by the former Marshall Liberal government. Despite that, we are here again.

In the last few weeks, we announced another decision to support working people, a decision that working people and the SDA (apparently a conspiracy theory) have been calling for: to bring South Australia into line with the other states and territories on the mainland and make Easter Sunday a public holiday. It is another day when low-paid workers—generally retail workers, hospitality workers and cleaners, as well as our emergency services workers, of course, who we all value highly in this place—are often working overtime to support our community. I am proud of that because I value working people. They matter to me, and they matter to us on this side of the house.

The Liberal Party responded to that commitment, despite the absolutely enormous outcry during their 10 seconds in government in response to their Christmas Day decision, by trying to remove Easter Saturday as a public holiday. It is another day over a long weekend when they can be with family and friends that many give up so they can go to work. Easter Saturday has been a public holiday here in South Australia for over 100 years. For 100 years it has been recognised by governments of all persuasions that people should not get just one day but, in reality, a whole long weekend to spend with their families at Easter time—and the Liberals have again decided, not surprisingly, that they do not value working people.

I am sure that many members on the other side and perhaps their supporters are spending their long weekends away at river shacks or in Robe or equivalent during the long weekend, but most of my relatives and friends will be working. I believe that work should be valued, I really do, just like I did when I worked at Tea Tree Plaza on Easter Saturday for many years. I not only commend the bill today but I really want to condemn the Liberal Party for their blatant attack on working people, and make no mistake, this is what that is. They have not learned a lesson from Christmas Day and are acting true to form as always.

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (20:15): I rise to congratulate the member for Newland on her comments and reiterate my support for the Public Holidays Bill before the house. Like the member for Newland, I have worked in low-paid jobs. I got my first job at 14, working as a waitress—I should say 'paid job' given I grew up on a farm and you pretty much start working as soon as you can walk. I got my first paid job at 14, working as a waitress. I took on another job working after school, scrubbing pots and pans at a local restaurant. I have managed a pub, working weekends when I would also love to be spending time with my family.

I think it is absolutely disgraceful that the opposition has chosen to attack workers. They have gone after Christmas, and now they are going after Easter. They are going after the long weekend, which many workers deserve to have off. If they are required to work, then they should be remunerated accordingly, because if you are working on a public holiday, you are entitled to penalty rates.

However, under the current rules, when Christmas Day falls on a Saturday, then it is not treated as a public holiday, which means Christmas Day workers miss out. Likewise, Easter Sunday is also not considered a public holiday, which means penalty rates do not apply. This bill will repeal the Holidays Act 1910 and replace it with an extremely simple set of rules for the regulation of public holidays. As the current legislation stands, Christmas Day is not treated as a public holiday unless it lands on a weekday. This bill changes that.

I would like to applaud the SDA union and their campaign to make these reforms a reality. I am a proud SDA member, and I heartily acknowledge the dedication and hard work of branch secretary Josh Peak and assistant branch secretary Jordan Mumford as well as the tireless efforts of organisers, reps, delegates and workers on the road, on the shop floor and in our warehouses. The efforts of our mighty union movement again are resulting in better outcomes for South Australians.

In comparison, the opposition are attacking workers and seeking to rip hundreds of dollars out of the pockets of hardworking South Australians during a cost-of-living crisis. It is shameful. By simplifying the legislation regulating public holidays, this framework will bring us into line with other states in the country. Let's be clear: Easter Sunday is a public holiday in every mainland state except South Australia. By declaring Easter Sunday a public holiday, we are following every other mainland state, ensuring workers receive their well-earned public holiday rates when required to work that day.

Further, the bill will ensure SA joins the Eastern States when considering additional and substitute public holidays. The current legislation outlines that if a public holiday falls on a Saturday, then a substitute day off will occur on the following Monday. This means that Saturday is treated as any other Saturday. This is in contrast to when a public holiday falls on a Sunday, when the Sunday and the following Monday are both considered public holidays, creating an additional day off.

This proposed legislation will simplify these rules so it will not matter whether the public holiday falls on a Saturday or a Sunday. Instead, if a public holiday falls on the weekend during the Christmas period, that day will be a public holiday, and an additional public holiday on the Monday will also apply. While this might not mean much to an average Monday to Friday, nine to five worker as the weekend is already considered their days off, this will assist our shift workers and those with less conventional rosters who work off-peak hours to receive the wages they deserve, wages that reflect the sacrifice of working on a day that most South Australians have off.

They are working on a day when they could be spending time with their loved ones, working when everyone is taking time off, to ensure that this state keeps running, business as usual. We saw during COVID just how essential these workers are, our nurses, aged-care workers, disability workers, those at the check-out, on the shop floor, driving our buses. They are working weekends, they are working late nights, early mornings and on public holidays, because the work has to be done.

These reforms will simplify and unify our rules around public holidays and give a fair wage to those who desperately need it during a cost-of-living crisis. These legislative changes will result in yet another election commitment being fulfilled, and again I am proud to be part of a Malinauskas Labor government which makes good on its promises. I look forward to the passing of this bill and for these reforms to come into effect next year. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (20:20): I rise to raise a few concerns I have in this space. As someone who had family involved in dairy farming for 183 years—until recently, when we sold the farm—there are people out there, business owners, dairy farmers and others, who operate businesses 365 days a year. Those people often employ staff to help them with their business. The consequences of putting more public holidays in place are actually likely to lead to those farmers themselves working those public holidays.

I was just thinking back over my time working on the dairy farm, which is about 35 years; I had two Christmas days off in those 35 years. My staff generally got Christmas Day off unless there was a particular issue. Occasionally, they would volunteer to work Christmas morning so I could be with my young kids. So there are people out there who this is really going to hurt.

Likewise, in my community I am seeing a bit of a change. Victor Harbor, Goolwa and the south coast generally have very much deregulated shop trading hours. Shops can open when they like, as a holiday zone down there. We see many of the shops now choosing to not open on public holidays. In recent times, the Chicken Run in Port Elliott, a chicken shop, has made the decision not to open on public holidays more often than not. This is causing the dilemma of people coming down to the tourist region and wanting to have a chicken down on the beach but not being able to do so because they are not open.

So there are consequences to this as we move forward. We must understand these sorts of changes that are being made—what they do to these sorts of businesses, the pressures they put on them. These businesses are small businesses that are trying to do what they can to survive, and they are having to make hard decisions and make those decisions that they cannot operate on these days. With those few words, I cannot support this increase in public holidays going forward.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (20:23): It has been really interesting sitting back and listening to the debates from both sides of the chamber. One side of the chamber says it is all about employees, cost of living, looking after members and union rights and union members, quality of life and everything that life at the moment is bringing in this unusual world that we are living in after COVID.

There are a couple of things that no-one talks about, which I find quite fascinating. One is that when the Australian women's soccer side got very close to winning the grand final there were suggestions out there—and it was put to the Premier—that we could have a public holiday on the success of the women's soccer. I had about 10 phone calls from businesses in my region saying, 'Over our dead bodies would we think that's a good idea.'

One of the reasons—and it was actually stated in the local media—was that if a public holiday was declared in South Australia or even across Australia it would cost around $60 million just in aged care. No-one talks about these sums and what they mean. The last speaker, the member for Finniss, was talking about businesses that operate 365 days of the year. These are businesses like hospitals, aged-care facilities, factories for milk production and food production with workers who are having to work on a Sunday so there is work on a Monday ready for the working chain to actually begin, fuel transporters, anything that operates 24 hours—airports, hotels, all the employees where things never shut down.

When you start rolling out three public holidays, no-one here has considered at all what it does to inflation. I have not heard anyone talk about the health bill, which might have imposed on it three more public holidays in South Australia, and what it will cost our health portfolio as a whole—is it $1 million, is it $100 million? Are you now $100 million short on your side of the chamber? No-one has told me anything about what it will cost for the 5,000 or 10,000 employees in the health sector. It is fascinating that no-one comes up with it.

I can tell you right now that the Limestone Coast would love $100 million to service the health needs of my constituents. We do not have hospitals that are modern, all the services are not there, there are not enough GPs in the hospitals, not enough nurses in the hospitals and not enough specialists down there—but we are really quick to change the rules that actually add to our problem. Then we talk about inflation, which is running at 5, 6, 7 per cent. Does anyone consider what that will be when you roll out these sorts of expenses into payroll?

What is really fascinating about this is that the argument I heard from this side is not wrong either, because if employees are working on Christmas Day why are they not valued at double? Why should they not be remunerated well? Now I am an Independent, I can take the middle road, and I am going to take the middle road. There is either side of the coin, and there is a right and a wrong, and there are both sides there.

What I would say is that I think Christmas is really obvious. It is a special day. It is the one big one of the year, unless you are totally non-religious of any type—almost like me—then with Christmas it can be any day of the year, if you want to make it that way, but we do try to celebrate it and we do try to do it well. The majority of people do see Christmas as one of those special big days of the year and an event. Any of those sectors I have talked about—health, aged care, running a hotel or motel, airports, anything that is going 24/7, 365 days a year—are always going to need staff in those facilities, and they do need to be recompensed really well and, obviously, remunerated well.

The other thing that never gets brought into this context is how this place—government as a whole, opposition and/or government—thinks that they have to rule by a line and a sentence and legislation, and they cannot leave it up to employers to remunerate over and above by themselves. Where there is an award, it is a base, and no-one talks about being paid more than the base. It is a line in the sand and you must not go below it, otherwise you will see yourself before the courts that look after employees to make sure they are remunerated fairly and appropriately.

One of the things that I find fascinating is that the major supermarkets, Coles and Woolworths, have a wage agreement with their staff but talk about a five, six or seven-day week, depending on what the employee is looking for, that will cover the spectrum of public holidays, leave loadings, time-and-a-half or double-time periods when the employees might find themselves working, that will cover the 365 days of the year. They are agreements between a worker and a boss, and this is what has been lost again in this discussion.

I would have loved to hear in this discussion, perhaps, when we talked about where we wanted to mandate and make sure those really important workers—as we heard from the member for King about how they sacrifice and give up that special day to serve others, those workers who sit inside the government circles—we could have talked about them separately from the outside industries and sectors in the greater wider world of the private sector in the South Australian economy.

Those sectors like health, aged care and any other public service that operates 365 days a year, seven days a week, 24 hours a day, they do need government to be legislating, mandating and calling it out for what it is, because no-one else is going in to bat for them.

In other words, the bosses, the bureaucracy, it is a black-and-white line, it is what it is and they have to roll it out, but everyone else can be subject to a private agreement, private enterprise, and they can talk and negotiate between their private employers, no matter how big they are. That goes from a massive company like BHP right down to a small supermarket chain, be it an IGA or a Foodland, where an owner is involved. They can have negotiations, so long as they do not fall below the award and the structures that are there; that is all that needs to be met.

A great opportunity would have been to able to distinguish and work out—and I have not heard any figures from the government side about what adding these three days might cost to the public sector, which will come back and hit the government purse and the government coffers (no doubt it will be in the millions of dollars, but I just do not know the extent of it)—whether there was an opportunity to work with the lowest base award employees and whether they were all being remunerated well enough if they did have to work these public holidays.

Normally, these lowest paid workers do not have to work public holidays because the employer cannot afford it, straight out cannot afford it. The product they are trying to produce and the work they are trying to do is why they are on the bottom and are the lowest paid—because if you are not in that area and that spectrum it just does not exist.

The other fascinating thing that no-one has mentioned is that, when you start adding to the costs of employing people, it becomes marginal and you start making more rules, making it harder for employers to pay employees, and you actually work against creating more jobs. In fact, it goes the other way and you perhaps take away jobs. It is not proven or an exact science, but the government has a really strong argument to say, 'Well, there are a lot more jobs out there nearly than workers, so what does it matter? We've got a really low unemployment rate, so if some of the sectors didn't employ so many people it would free up a workforce.'

I can tell you right now that in this current game it is really hard to find employees out there, skilled employees. If this breaks some shackles on some employees and some businesses slow down, do not employ as many, or do not employ them to do those days when it now will be double time or greater—2.25 I see some hospitality penalty rates are for a public holiday—then maybe these other workers will be freer to do other work where workers cannot be found at all. Maybe that is a motivation here that might be a great consequence of the government's move. I can tell you that from an employer's perspective there are ramifications in this bill getting through.

There used to be a lot of banter in my family when we saw award wages going up by an exponential amount and, if there was not productivity in the workforce to pay for it, we only added to inflation. We start paying our employees more, but they are worse off because everything costs more. One of the things I find really fascinating and an interesting statistic relates to the meat processing game. Right now, we are going through a real glut, where the abattoirs in Australia cannot find workers and they can only operate the one shift. Protein out the other end is not much cheaper for consumers, and I think you have seen around a 6 per cent reduction in some meat products, maybe a bit more, but producers have seen a 50 to 70 per cent correction and you have seen a 6 to 10 per cent correction on the supermarket shelf.

One thing I would like this place to know is that, way back about 15 years ago, I heard that in Brazil it cost $50 to break down a beast, a cow, a steer—cattle; it was $100 to break it down and kill it in America; it was $150 to kill it in New Zealand; and it was $200 to kill it in Australia—15 years ago. I can tell you that those figures are irrelevant, but the ratios are still the same.

We suddenly say, 'We just must be paying all our employees too much. Australian abattoir workers are all just getting way too big wages.' That is a nonsense. That is not the case at all. They are not like that. It is everything else surrounding it: the energy costs, the inspections, the transport costs. Now we are going to have drivers driving cattle, sheep and lambs into the abattoirs on a Sunday on a public holiday, who will need to have some sort of remuneration for working public holidays. All this has to be taken into account.

Then we add the diesel costs, we add the fuel tax and then we put in the wear and tear on our roads, which barely keep up with it as well, so the trucks are more expensive to operate on the roads. Then, when you take the product away from the abattoir, that is also more expensive. Our whole chain around processing meat is more expensive than anywhere else in the world. It is not just the wages that are a problem; in fact, wages might be a portion, but they certainly may not be a majority. There may be a number of other things in there.

These are the consequences of what we are rolling out and I am seeing today. They do have consequences down the line and so in the end, when you try to buy your hamburger or your sausage—let's say you are a lower socio-economic wage earner and that is a lot of your staple diet—they are not going to be any cheaper by these sorts of processes. I can also probably say that the wage earner, because they will not get the opportunity to work on a public holiday, will not get the benefit of what those over that side have just been arguing about, that all wage earners are going to get this double time. This person does not get to work on public holidays, but his food and his cost of living are going to go up, so they are no better off.

You have gone in to bat for workers to be better off by receiving these benefits, but the problem is there are consequences, and they are not widespread. They are not all benefits; sometimes they are hits to the hip pocket. I can say to you to you honestly that perhaps the poor get poorer with the rolling out of these types of works because they are not receiving your bonuses, your three public holidays and your double pay that you think everyone is going to get when you roll it out—because they do not have jobs on Christmas Day or on public holidays during Easter. They may not have a job at all. I wonder whether you are then going to lift the social payments and Jobseeker as well to keep up with inflation at the rate we probably need to.

These are the sorts of things that I think both sides of this chamber—in other words, the government and the opposition—need to be fully cognisant of. There are wider ramifications than just saying, 'We look after workers, and we are going to be the great person for all the workers who have to work these days.' On this side, it is all about small businesses, and I heard about the Stirling butcher shop or supermarket, and I heard about the pizza bar and so forth. Yes, they are there. They will either put it into their cost structure or they will not open. They will keep the doors closed and it will not matter. The jobs are not there. They do not make the losses, and you do not get your pizzas, you do not go to the butcher shop, the supermarkets remain closed and no-one really wins. These are the sorts of ramifications of this sort of legislation.

I will agree and happily support that any Christmas that does not represent a public holiday is a missed opportunity, and I am with you on that. I think even this side recognise that. They found it really hard to argue against you, I can tell you that. Their arguments were not that strong, and rightly so.

In summing up, this is perhaps a two-pronged approach in its consequences for workers and for businesses. I think that in the end it is not worth the fight. The government will get this through. Employers will have to work to the way this will function and operate. The Labor Party will look like it is looking after its workers, it will look like it will have its Easter public holidays, it will look like it will have Christmas Day and all Christmas Days will turn out to be a public holiday—tick, tick, tick—and there will be some financial losses, costs and problems with that as well.

How do you define that—how it actually is recognised when the budgets do not match up in the health sector or in the aged-care facilities and they are finding it hard to make the sums stack up today. Some of the workers in the aged-care sector are some of the lowest paid workers in the economy. We have to bring in overseas workers to fill these positions as it is because Australians do not want to do them. All I am going to say is good luck to everyone. I hope we enjoy the fact that we get a Christmas Day and that every day is going to be a public holiday on a Christmas Day. It will be interesting to see how Easter looks, how many businesses are open and how many function during Easter Saturday and Easter Sunday. May all businesses be fruitful and successful with this.