STATUTES AMENDMENT (SHOP TRADING AND HOLIDAYS) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I rise to make some fairly specific remarks in relation to this clause, which I must say I find one of the most invidious ways of finding a solution to a problem that I have seen in my nearly nine years in parliament. It has been a flippant approach to what is a specific problem within the Rundle Mall, which could have quite easily been solved had the government had the good sense to adopt the policy as proposed by the member for Adelaide, Rachel Sanderson, who was on to this very early in her term and, indeed, prior to that, as the candidate for Adelaide; that is, that this could have happened if that area had been designated as a tourist precinct. Why we need to have every business in South Australia captured by this in order to satisfy the shoppies union is beyond most businesses.

We are the highest taxed state in South Australia, and this just adds another prong to what already makes South Australia incredibly uncompetitive for anybody who is looking to invest capital in this state. They will certainly be looking to other jurisdictions, which bend over backwards to try to attract investment, rather than in this state, which just keeps thinking that people who have capital, people who employ people, can continue to have imposts put on them without any effect on jobs. I will be speaking to a motion later in relation to young people leaving this state. I think this parliament is doing a very grave disservice to the young people of South Australia because it will just be another thing that will remove opportunities for young people to continue to be employed in this state.

Those are some general comments. I would also like to talk about the aged-care sector, which is one I am very familiar with; I worked with one of the peak bodies, the Aged Care Association of SA, as it is now known. We have also received representations from the larger group, which is Aged and Community Services SA & NT. It has provided us with some specific examples. I understand that it would have provided them to all members, and I think it is worth raising them in this parliament.

Aged care is quite unique in a unique and difficult situation because it cannot cut services on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. It is regulated by the federal government. It is required to fulfil obligations through the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency. Therefore, by law and by regulation, it is unable to do what the government flippantly thinks most businesses will be able to do. They cannot close their doors—they operate 24/7, 52 weeks of the year—nor can they raise revenue because their fees are capped. There is a very specific fee per level of care per person within those facilities, so they are stuck with this deal.

I heard some remarks by the Hon. Mr Darley last night in relation to some sewerage charges but I would be interested to know specifically how those equate. Boandik Lodge in the South-East with 224 bed facilities says that this lovely little deal is going to cost it another $11,000. So, my question for the government is: can the government give us specific dollar figures for those? The Aged Care Association says that for the average 100 bed facility the additional cost per 100 beds is $2,500, and that does not include all on costs, I might add.

When you add those into it, that is a great deal more. I would ask what form of compensation the government is providing and how it is calculating it—whether it is doing it on a per bed facility or whether it is doing it on their entire rateable land? I would suggest that the government needs to consult directly with aged care facilities. They provided them with some land tax relief several years ago, but this deal is going to disadvantage aged care in South Australia compared to other states.

We have also had representation from the supported residential facility sector which does not receive any funding at all. Bellara Village at Campbelltown is regulated under the Supported Residential Facilities Act and they, too, are unable to recoup their costs, so we would ask how the government is intending to address that particular sector.

Other sectors I think bear mentioning because these can be some of their peak times—Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. They can be difficult times for families. From the point of view of the women's shelters, family shelters and the youth shelters, I ask whether the government has any intention of providing additional funding to those sectors as they have for the disability services workers so that those organisations are not disadvantaged as they will be captured whether they be in the Riverland, Ceduna or in the South-East. Every single operation that has paid employees is going to be captured by this phoney deal. With those comments, I look forward to the further committee stage of this debate.

I should have also mentioned—and this is my last point I would like to make—that when Premier Weatherill was minister for aging, he attended a forum in a community cabinet in Gawler. He made a commitment to the aged care sector there. He was asked quite specifically about the issue of aged care funding. Aged care funding is an invidious issue. I think aged care is probably one of the most regulated sectors in Australia and indeed the state. It has so much scrutiny of every aspect of its operations for good reason but it also means that it can be an extremely complex area to manage.

It is currently under review with the Productivity Commission because there are concerns in relation to the viability of the aged care sector, so there may be some significant changes to their funding. It is unlikely—given that the Rudd and Gillard governments have completely blown the bank, as Labor governments are wont to do—that there is going to be any additional funding, but so be it. Premier Weatherill (as he is now) made a commitment in 2004:

Make no mistake, as Minister for Aging I will be reminding the PM of his responsibility for aged care. He is not going to cost shift onto the State Government.

His government is seeking to potentially cost shift to the federal government, so I would like to specifically know what commitment then minister Weatherill (now the Premier) had made then that he has followed through or if he actually resiles from those comments that he made seven years ago directly to the aged care sector.

The CHAIR: I was very tolerant, I must say. A lot of that had not very much to do with clause 1. The Hon. Mr Stephens, see if you can improve on that.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I have some comments to make on clause 1. Firstly, can I just say how disappointed I am, not so much with the government because I would not expect anything less than the way they have pulled this on, but with my crossbench colleagues for basically guillotining our opportunity to make second reading contributions. It is almost unprecedented. Last night I was actually in shock. Given that the indication this week was that this bill had to be passed by the end of the week and our commitment was to fall into line with that, to have my crossbench colleagues deny me the right of a proper second reading contribution is something that I will remember for some period of time. For the life of me, I do not understand why you would taint yourself with that sort of behaviour. It is not Legislative Council like.

My comments and questions are: a number of my colleagues make great play out of being concerned about taxation rates in this state, and rightly so, and yet with one foul swoop are quite prepared to add millions to the expenditure of this government with, I think, very little consideration. What makes me even angrier is how, with one foul swoop, industries that are at risk, and I believe are still at risk, have also had extra costs and imposts imposed upon them. Members would not be surprised to know that I still take a very keen interest in the city of Whyalla and the company OneSteel, which drives Whyalla.

The federal government, on the one hand, has imposed a ridiculous carbon tax, and on the other hand, thank God, has seen fit to provide a training grant (not a subsidy) of almost $60 million to that particular company, I believe to keep it in the game of making steel. That is incredibly important to the city of Whyalla and, I think, incredibly important to Australia, because I cannot imagine this great country not having a steelmaking capability. I cannot believe that any government of any persuasion would allow this country not to have a steelmaking capability.

So, with one foul swoop we have decided that we are going to add an extra cost to the steelmaking industry in Whyalla. Yes, congratulations to the steelworkers who are going to get penalty rates for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. I believe Whyalla people understand how important it is to have that steelmaking facility continue. Yes, there is much play and talk about the mining industry out of Whyalla, which has been welcome, but the big employer is the steelmaking industry. One of my questions to the minister will be: what cost has just been lumped upon OneSteel in Whyalla? How will that ensure that the steelmaking industry in Whyalla will continue? How does that ensure that we continue to have steelmaking capability in Australia? I am very concerned about OneSteel in Whyalla.

My colleague, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, has already touched on the aged care industry, so I will not continue with that, but I think it has been a disgraceful decision to impose extra costs on an industry that supposedly we all care about, the care of our aged. The current Premier and the federal government have recently assisted Holden with a handout to keep them in South Australia and Australia. So, on the one hand we recognise the vulnerability of the car industry and on the other hand we decide: 'Let's just add costs to that industry.' Congratulations. 'Let's have another 10 hours of penalty rates.' That is because we are so driven with commercial thinking in this parliament. Congratulations.

I was on the West Coast, on Eyre Peninsula, last week and I talked to a number of people about the impacts of marine parks, about the propositions that have been put, about how it actually affects them, and I inspected sites that have been talked about. I spoke to a number of country hoteliers who cannot believe that this parliament could, in what are difficult times, pass further imposts upon their businesses.

I was in Streaky Bay talking to a publican there, who is dramatically considering what he is going to do with regard to his business on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. It is a one-hotel town, and it is a fantastic community; they do not have the option, if he decides to close his business, to go round the corner or down the street or meet their friends at another facility, because there isn't one. Given his past patronage on those nights—certainly on Christmas Eve—he is considering how he can make the business function on that particular evening without losing quite a bit of money. So he passes on his thanks—not—to those of you who decided that this is a wonderful piece of legislation.

We have missed the point in this parliament. We are in difficult economic times; business is doing it tough. I guess this piece of legislation separates the Labor Party and its cohorts and the Liberal Party, which understands that someone has to pay. Socialists are fantastic at spending other people's money. Good on you. Eventually that runs out, and then conservatives come and have to find a way to make the books balance. That will be our job at some stage; we will have to come in and pick up the mess.

So for those of you who are traditional socialists: congratulations, it looks like you are going to have a win on this. For those of us who understand that it is business that drives economies, that economies look after those who cannot look after themselves, that strong economies are really important, I am just mystified as to how those on the government benches and those who are supporting them think we are going to pay.

I can probably have a guess; it will be more taxes, a higher taxation regime. To those industries that are at risk, to those hoteliers and restaurants who are struggling, I hope they will remember those who have taken these actions to make their lives even more difficult.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I concur with the comments made by the Hon. Mr Stephens in relation to the process of this bill. The first day of debate in this chamber was yesterday, and the normal procedure is that members are entitled to a reasonable chance of making a second reading contribution. The government of the day, together with the support of some crossbench members, took that right away from some members of this chamber, to speak at the second reading.

That is fine, the government has made that particular decision; but what goes around comes around. Let it be on the record that a number of people in this chamber took the view that when it suits them they will prevent other members in the chamber from being able to speak at a second reading. It is not as if this bill had been delayed for weeks on end with people refusing to speak; this was the first day this bill had been in the chamber, and members were refused the right to speak today on the issue.

The numbers are the numbers Mr Chairman, as I am sure you would recognise being an old AWU man from way back. It does not matter where the numbers come from, above the ground or below the ground it does not really matter. On this occasion the numbers are there, but what goes around comes around. There will be an occasion when members may seek the support of Liberal members to follow the normal practice and conventions this chamber in terms of debate, and it may be that Liberal members adopt the particular position that the government has adopted on this occasion.

The second point I make, Mr Chairman, is that the government sends a priority listing to members each week, and that priority listing of legislation—albeit, it is subject to change; we have been told for weeks that the work health and safety bill is a critical issue for the government and had to be debated and, for some reason, it is now not even being brought on for debate. In relation to this particular bill (shop trading), we were told that, from the government's viewpoint, they wanted the bill through by Thursday of this week.

On most occasions, that is something that is supported by the majority of members of this chamber. On some occasions, such as with the work health and safety bill of last year, it is opposed by a majority of members in this chamber; it was ultimately a decision for the Legislative Council in relation to the government's intention. But, to the extent that it is possible, most members in this chamber give some weight to the government's wishes.

The government's wishes on this bill were not to jam it through on the Tuesday—at least, that is not the position that we were advised—nor to jam it through on Wednesday morning; it was that the bill be processed by Thursday afternoon. Certainly, from our viewpoint, we are not supportive of the notion that this particular issue should be jammed through on Wednesday morning.

As I outlined yesterday—and I am not making any criticism of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, who is having his amendments drafted by parliamentary counsel—we did not receive the precise amendments from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire until Monday afternoon, which did not give us time to consider the detail of his amendments at our party meeting on Monday. As was the position we put forward yesterday, we believe that the debate on this bill could be deferred until next week; it would not cause any grief at all, because the government has the power—as it has already done in relation to three public holidays this year—to issue exemptions.

The reality is that the government is really just playing games in relation to the Easter issue, because it can do what it wants to do, in the full knowledge that—whether it is this week or next week—it believes it has the numbers to put this bill through. Let us put aside the furphy that, in some way, this is critical for Easter trading in 10 days' time; the government knows it has that power on this issue.

So, Mr Chairman, I think it is one thing if, ultimately, the majority of members in this chamber choose to ignore the request from the Liberal Party to consider the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendments next Monday at its party meeting. One could at least understand this position; that is, the government advised them that they want this bill through by Thursday, and they may well say to the Liberal Party and others, 'Look, we are going to vote to make sure this is voted on by Thursday of this week. You won't have the opportunity to consider the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendments at your party meeting next Monday.' I would not agree with that, but at least I would understand that particular position.

Mr Chairman, I am strongly opposing this chamber being forced to vote on these particular amendments and issues this morning, and to be forced into a position to vote for or against a number of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's detailed amendments 36 hours or so after we have had the opportunity to consider them. In my second reading contribution, I briefly raised some issues which we had received from some stakeholders yesterday (within 24 hours), and I received an email from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's office indicating that he might not be moving ahead with some parts of his amendments.

That is fine, but, again, this is a moveable feast; I am not sure whether other members are aware of that, and I am not aware of which specific amendments will not be moved ahead. As I said, there are a couple of issues which have already been raised by stakeholders, but the reality is that we have only had two stakeholders come back to us, out of the dozens to whom we sent the amendments, given that, as I said, it has only been 36 hours.

The position which I am putting to the committee is that our preference is obviously to have this delayed until the Party room can consider the amendment next Monday, and we can then process the bill on the Tuesday. If that is not going to be the case, then my proposition to the committee is that we be forced to a vote tomorrow; we will not be in a position to vote on the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendments, but we can at least raise some questions in relation to those issues, and also consider some of the responses the minister gave last night in reply to the questions I asked in my second reading contribution.

Our early advice is that there is very strong opposition to some significant errors and inaccuracies in the advice the minister gave to the chamber last night, and we are waiting for some detailed advice in relation to some of the claims the minister made last evening. There is a whole series of other questions which remains unanswered in relation to this particular issue and the questions we raised at the second reading. We will, if required, use the Legislative Council standing orders to ensure that the minister will continue to be asked questions about those particular issues that he has thus far not addressed in the response to the second reading. So, I am intending to move that progress be reported this morning at clause 1.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Lucas has made a second second reading speech. I think the Chair has been very fair to allow the Hon. Ms Lensink and the Hon. Mr Stephens to make their second reading contributions to clause 1. The Hon. Mr Lucas has got up and made another second reading speech. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendments do not come into play until clause 6, so I ask the Hon. Mr Lucas to move his amendment. If he is only concerned about the amendments of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, he might consider trying to convince the committee to have progress reported when we get to clause 6. He might not be able to convince it, but that is when he should make that effort. So, he might want to first of all move his amendment to clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not intend to move my amendment to clause 1. I acknowledge your advice, but it is just that—advice—and it does not dictate what occurs in the committee stage of the debate. The standing orders of this council dictate what occurs in relation to this particular debate. In response to what the Chair has just said, the amendments proposed to be moved by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire do have an impact on other parts of the bill. They do not just relate to the particular issues that are going to be affected by his specific amendments.

I am intending to move to report progress. I understand that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and maybe others want to address this issue of clause 1. As soon as I move to report progress, that cuts off debate, so I acknowledge that I will not move to report progress on clause 1 at this stage, but I am flagging that I am intending to move to report progress on clause 1, not on clause 6, much as you would prefer that, Mr Chairman.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Regarding clause 1, as a point of clarification before asking the minister a question, and following on from the Hon. Rob Lucas, Family First does have some concerns over procedure for a start. We made a commitment to the government that we would ensure that, if our two votes were needed, we would support the government starting this debate yesterday, which we have honoured, as has the whole chamber. That is by itself not usual practice. In fact, it is supposed to sit for two weeks before any debate occurs. However, in the best interest of giving the government the best opportunity possible, we agreed to that.

I note that the Hon. Ann Bressington may be unwell again today, and when members are unwell they are not expected to be, nor should they be expected to be, even in this chamber. Whilst we have seen a totally undemocratic process thus far on the processes, procedures and the democracy of the Westminster system with this bill—and there is no doubt about that; government members can shake their head—what has happened here is bad for democracy; notwithstanding that, there are amendments.

We were only told on Wednesday or Thursday of last week that a deal had finally been done. In fairness to parliamentary counsel, parliamentary counsel has a fairly big workload, and I acknowledge that workload. We had to consider, with the bill being done, what amendments we could bring into this house to offer other opportunities to the sectors that are affected positively or negatively by this bill. Then, the time for you to consider that, get parliamentary counsel to deliberate and properly and professionally draft those amendments and get them out to your colleagues actually takes a little while. This deal, done behind closed doors between two people, took somewhere between nine and 18 months, depending on who you talk to, yet we are expected to rubber stamp this.

I support what the Hon. Rob Lucas is saying, if required, on clause 1. I would like to hear from the government, obviously, but I would like to spend some time talking to my colleagues on the crossbenches, and the opposition, to see where they may or may not support the amendments that I have put up. I am only asking for a 24-hour period. I ask the minister: does the minister want to effectively guillotine debate on this bill altogether, or is the minister prepared to allow the democracy of the Westminster system to proceed whereby we can have 24 hours to at least establish whether there are enough numbers on the crossbenches and then go to the opposition to find out whether there are enough numbers in this house to spend time debating and putting forward a voting procedure on the amendments?

At the moment, there is no time even to go to crossbench members and discuss the clauses. This is unprecedented in my years in the parliament. We are the only check and balance in this place, otherwise we would have an Anna Bligh situation, for sure, with a dictatorship in the lower house. From a procedural point of view on clause 1, firstly: minister, are you prepared to allow proper democratic process in this parliament and, if so, will you agree after clause 1 to allow us to have enough time to deliberate with colleagues on what are important amendments for workers, employers and, in fact, for the whole economy and the social issues around this matter with respect to the whole state? Are you prepared to allow that democratic process, minister?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I would like to go through a number of the issues raised by the honourable members in clause 1. The Hon. Ms Lensink raised a few issues about aged care, NGOs and also women's shelters. Our analysis of the impact on the aged-care industry is that the impacts will be modest. Their rostering tends to see fewer staff working by about 7pm so, for a home with an annual payroll of about $2.5 million, we calculate the additional cost in the order of $1,300 per year.

In addition, the government will consider the application of exemptions regarding some charges attaching to land, and my advice is that when the Valuer-General is valuing aged-care homes he does that in accordance with the number of beds. This will be considered in the light of any changes to aged-care funding as a result of the industry's approaches to the federal government. The Premier made it clear that this consideration would be made separately from the legislation and there is no guarantee about the outcome.

In relation to state-funded non-government organisations, we have made a commitment to adjust funding arrangements to compensate for the additional costs of those services operating on the nights of Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. One of the advantages of moving to 7 o'clock as the start of a public holiday is that it enables us to fund the additional costs of those state-funded NGOs delivering disability and other community services on those nights.

With regard to women's shelters, there has been no contact with me or my department by any women's shelter or organisation representing women's shelters expressing concern about the impact that these part public holidays will have. I think there can be a game played where organisations who seem to have no objections to this are brought into the debate, expecting an answer from me. I am not going to enter into debate where there is no—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Did you call me a dickhead?

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: I called you a genius.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Are you sure?

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: I'm quite sure.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Because you do have a tendency of loose-lipping sometimes. So, Mr President, I will not be drawn into hypothetical situations at the whim of the opposition. Mr Stephens brought up OneSteel. OneSteel has been the recipient of tens of millions of dollars in subsidies. I must say that it staggers me now that the whole steel industry is going to fold because of 10 hours a year in public holidays. I do not even think it warrants a response, so I will move on to the next issue.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: You might have to respond, because we might have some supplementaries on that sort of answer because that's a pathetic, weak answer.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire had a fair go.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Well, I've got a lot more fair go. I've got 15 questions on clause 1 yet.

The CHAIR: Well, you might ask them when you're on your feet, and stop interjecting.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: In relation to second reading speeches, I will make it clear from the word go that it is the right of this committee to debate every clause in this bill and every amendment that comes into it. Of course, we will honour that; we want as much debate as we can get. In regard to going into committee yesterday, the Notice Paper was quite clear that there would be a number of speakers and then we would go into committee. So, we did what we had made quite clear we would do in the first place.

It then arose that the Hon. Ms Lensink (I understood that it was the Hon. Mr Dawkins) wanted to make a second reading speech. Well, they have made their second reading speech. There has been no attempt to guillotine any debate in this chamber. The only attempt at a guillotine will come in a minute when the Hon. Mr Lucas tries to stall the debate on this very important issue.

We are not attempting to jam this through parliament. We will debate this bill this morning and we will debate it tonight—we will sit as late as we need to tonight—and we will debate it tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. So, you will have all the chances in the world to debate this. So, let's get away from this game that is being played that we are trying to jam it through parliament. We will give it the debate that would be rightly expected in this chamber, bearing in mind that a lot of the debate has already occurred in the extensive debate in the lower house. Many of the answers have probably already been given to questions that will be asked today, but we will seek to answer all legitimate questions that come up through this debate.

In regard to proclaiming public holidays and exemptions, we do not think it is appropriate, when we are looking at such important changes being made in South Australia, that they be done by proclamation. We have done it in the past, but we do not intend to do it in the future. There will be plenty of debate in this chamber in regard to this bill. It is the intention of the government to have this bill passed and returned to the lower house by tomorrow morning. That way, it will give us plenty of time to make the appropriate arrangements for Easter Sunday and Monday.

In regard to the Hon. Ms Bressington's not being here, we do not hold up important bills because a member is sick. I must say that my sympathies go out to the Hon. Ms Bressington; I hope she gets well quickly. But in saying that, I indicate that Ms Bressington is entitled to a pair. So, there is no issue in regard to the Hon. Ms Bressington. In regard to the amendments, it is not unknown for the Hon. Mr Brokenshire to bring in amendments to hold up bills. The only change that took place from the debate in the lower house—

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Point of order, Sir. I ask the minister to withdraw that. He said that it is not unusual for me to try to hold up bills by bringing in amendments. That is untrue, and I ask for it to be withdrawn. I have a right to bring in amendments.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: He is out of order.

The CHAIR: The honourable minister.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Thank you, Mr Chair. The only amendment that has come from the lower house to the upper house is going from 5pm to 7pm. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has had this bill for quite a while. He has had plenty of time to get his amendments into this parliament Knowing that there is a time line and that it is the intent of this government to get this bill through parliament as soon as possible, he has chosen to bring up these amendments, which, by the way, are not supported at all by this government. I understand that they do not have the majority support of this parliament anyway. I am happy to debate them but, at the end of the day, this government has a job to do. This is a very important piece of legislation, and we will seek to continue with the committee stage right now.

In regard to checks and balances, you are right. This is a house very often referred to by Independents and the opposition as the house of checks and balances and debate, and we will continue with that tradition. I remind members of this: in the second reading debate for the Work Health and Safety Bill, the opposition and Family First indicated to this chamber that they were going to guillotine debate at the second reading. On such an important piece of legislation—and it is on the Hansard; you cannot get away from the Hansard—they made it quite clear that they were not going to support the second reading and not go into committee. So if there is anyone who tries to avoid their responsibilities—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: —in this chamber, it is the opposition. I think I have answered appropriately, and shouting over me when I am trying to give answers to questions does not mean you are right, because this bill has the overwhelming support of the community. You people are out of touch with the community. In that, I move that the committee vote on clause 1.

The CHAIR: We have an amendment to it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Just a general comment to clause 1. The Greens would like to draw the attention of members to the fact that the Statutes Amendment (Members' Benefits) Bill of 2010 passed the House of Assembly on 15 September, was introduced to the Legislative Council on 15 September, debated and passed by the Legislative Council on 16 September with Liberal and government support to stifle debate or allow any amendments. Certainly, the Greens are not sympathetic to—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am being told by the opposition that this is a new approach that they would like to see implemented. When we see consistency, the Greens will believe that this is about freedom of speech and debate and democracy.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Ms Franks has the floor.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: And clearly democracy is very important to the members who wish to shout across the chambers. When it suits, the Liberals are happy to support the government to stifle debate and rush a bill through. We have had this information on this bill since October last year. It is no surprise to us—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: In its current form? How long have we had it?

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Would you like to keep heckling me?

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Ms Franks, continue.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That just firms the Greens' resolve that this is not actually about debating the bill. This is about point-scoring and politically playing the man, not the ball. We are looking at debating the first clause. I hear the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has at least 15 questions on the first clause. We look forward to hearing those 15 questions. Clearly, he is ready for at least the first clause. If there is a problem at the sixth clause where the first of the Brokenshire amendments come in, then perhaps we may see a division at that point, but certainly let's get on with clause 1.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: My first question to the minister is that I am advised that a close assessment of this bill will see close to $1 million of additional wage costs for the whole aged care sector. The advice I have is that it does not include the possible implications to those who are aged and receive care in their home.

I am also advised that younger people with disabilities in aged care facilities—in other words, permanent residents—and I have received these figures through the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. I could only get them back to 2009-10. I could not find anything more recent for South Australia. Having said that, we have 22 people with severe disabilities who are permanent residents in aged care facilities who are less than 50 years of age, and we have 134 who are 50 to 64 years of age.

So, in South Australia right at this point in time, we have 156 people who are the responsibility primarily of the state government because these are people who have disabilities. I commend the Hon. Kelly Vincent for negotiating the issue around trying to get top-up for the disability sector. The aged care sector has had no offer of top-up and, not only that, we have 156 people at least in aged care who are the responsibility of the state government primarily.

My question to the minister is: what work has the government done to analyse this? Does the minister agree that the cost for these people and others in aged care will be around $1 million, if you have done any scoping on it? That is the second question. The third question is: has the minister had a legal opinion regarding the discrimination act?

The preliminary advice to me is that if the government is looking at topping up for the disability sector and then not look at topping up for the disability sector in aged care—we are all concerned about young people with a disability being in an aged care nursing home and the issues around the aged care sector per se—has the minister had legal advice on whether or not there is a discrimination matter here that can be challenged to the government?

Does the minister confirm $1 million, or thereabouts, of top-up that will not be available to the aged care sector? What scoping has the government been doing regarding this? Why has the minister and his government chosen to separate out the disability sector but not the disability sector in aged care facilities? Why are they not prepared to help the vulnerable people in aged care facilities? They are my first three points on clause 1 to the minister and I would like specific answers, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: The minister can answer whichever way he sees fit.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: In my answer to the Hon. Ms Lensink I made the statement that our analysis of the impact on the aged care industry is that it will be modest. Their rostering tends to see fewer staff on by about 7pm, so for a home with an annual payroll of about $2.5 million we calculate the additional cost as in the order of $1,300. In addition, the government will consider the application of exemptions regarding some charges attaching to land, such as are applied to charities. This will be considered in the light of any changes to aged care funding as a result of the industry's approaches to the federal government.

Regarding discrimination, I have always been led to believe that the government has a right to allocate funding as it sees fit. If the government had to go to the discrimination court every time it made an allocation of funding that did not suit one sector of the industry, it would never get a budget out. So, do what you need to do with the legal advice. The government has made an arrangement to ensure that NGOs and those working in the disability sector will be compensated. It has also given undertakings to aged care that it will look at the arrangements when applying charges, as it does with charities.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Supplementary to that, there is a huge discrepancy in the amount of money that the government, through the minister, is saying it is going to cost aged care. If I hear right, the minister is saying it is going to cost $1,000 or so.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Per home.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Per home. Does the minister confirm that the aggregate of that will be, as I am advised with the homework I have done and in looking at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare figures, that the cost will be close to $1 million per year?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No, he has not, because he has not been able to even tell the council what the cost is. He said it is going to be so much per residency. What does the aggregate of that cost?

The CHAIR: Order! Leave debate out of the committee stage.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Our analysing of the industry indicates to us that it will cost in the order of $1,300 for a home with an annual turnover of $2.5 million. I do not have a total figure off the top of my head, but if that is the case it is not as dramatic as the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is trying to say. If a home with an annual turnover of $2.5 million is going to have a cost of $1,300, we would consider that as an insignificant cost. In saying that, the Premier has given an undertaking that in the context of the federal government's review on its funding, we will look at an application for exemption regarding some charges attaching to the land. This will have a financial benefit to these homes. I think the government has done the right thing by this sector and also by the disability sector.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Regarding the 156, at least, people that I understand have a disability in aged care, is the government prepared to assist those people with quality of life by topping up the cost to those people, as indeed it has done through a commitment to top up with the disability sector? What about those 156 people, minister?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: If our analysis of the home says that it is a home with a $2.5 million wage bill that is going to incur a cost of $1,300 I do not accept the fact that the quality of life of those people will be lessened on Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve as a result of our part-public holidays.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I want to make a brief comment in relation to the contribution of the Hon. Tammy Franks. In relation to debates on those sorts of bills, the position I have adopted—and I will check the record in relation to it—is that if the government comes to the opposition and says that it wants a bill to go through contrary to the normal process, we generally say it should go and speak to the crossbenchers and see whether or not they are prepared to agree to it.

The Hon. M. Parnell: That didn't happen.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What I will have a look at, when I check the record, is whether the Greens moved to report progress or to adjourn the debate and, if they did, whether we supported them or not. Let us just check the record, because that is how you test this issue ultimately—

The CHAIR: This has nothing to do with the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —as to whether or not you actually move to adjourn it or report progress, and whether or not we supported that position.

The CHAIR: They must have your heartstrings.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We would be struggling to find one for you, Mr Chairman, I would have thought.

The CHAIR: That's right; hear, hear!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly; but that did relate to superannuation, so I suspect you might have been interested in that one—not much else, but that sort of thing.

The CHAIR: You shouldn't spit the dummy, Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not spitting the dummy, just highlighting what is of interest—

The CHAIR: Get back to the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —to you, Mr Chairman, which would be superannuation and salary.

The CHAIR: You should stick to the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Other issues probably not.

The CHAIR: Mine's not quite as big as yours, though.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Your what?

The CHAIR: My super is not quite as big as yours.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Your stock?

The CHAIR: My super.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I was going to say that if you have stock, you have stock that I don't have, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: You should be debating the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That has nothing to do with the bill, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: You should be debating the bill; get on with it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly. Don't be distracted by discussions about your stock earnings or holdings, Mr Chairman. It's got nothing to do with the bill.

The CHAIR: Hear, hear! We don't want to upset you.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It would take more than that to upset me, Mr Chairman, let me assure you.

The CHAIR: I don't think so.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The questions the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is raising are important questions. In relation to this issue—which was also raised at the second reading—the Premier issued a press release headed 'Win for shoppers, small business and workers.' It read:

The government has varied the start of the part public holidays and agreed to provide extra funding to state government-funded non-government organisations providing services during these times

My question to the minister is: does he stand by that commitment, in precisely those terms that the Premier issued publicly?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks.

The Hon. M. Parnell interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The honourable minister.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I will answer the question first. In relation to state-funded NGOs, we have made a commitment—and I stand by that commitment—to adjust funding arrangements to compensate for the initial cost of those services operating on the nights of Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. One of the advantages of moving to the 7pm start of the public holiday is that it enables us to fund the additional costs of those state-related NGOs delivering disability and other community services on those nights.

I think we are starting to see, already on clause 1, a degeneration of the debate and the behaviour of certain people in this chamber. It is a deliberate attempt to stall this. We have gone for an hour and we are not even halfway through clause 1. Let's just get on with the questions so that we can get the answers.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is the minister refusing to stand by the commitment that the Premier has given in this house? Is the minister saying to this house that the government's position is that it will provide extra funding to state government-funded non-government organisations providing services during these times? Is that the government's commitment?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: If I have to answer the same question three or four times we will never get through this debate. We are talking about state-funded NGOs delivering disability and other community services on those nights. I stand by the Premier's commitment.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, did you have a question?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a response to the question posed to the chamber by the Hon. Rob Lucas, and I would like to point to page 869 of the Legislative Council Hansard of Thursday 16 September, when the Hon. Mark Parnell, in that aforementioned debate on parliamentarians' benefits, moved that the debate be adjourned, and it was indeed opposed by the Liberal opposition and the government. In fact, it was only four crossbenchers—the Hon. Ann Bressington, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, and the two Greens members, who—

The CHAIR: As I said to the Hon. Mr Lucas, it is irrelevant to the bill. We should get on with the bill, and you can perhaps take those issues up between yourselves over the lunch break. The Hon. Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, I am happy to stand corrected; it was a question to the Hon. Ms Franks. I had no recollection of what the process was. My position generally is that if the government cannot get the crossbenchers on side for a particular debate, we should not proceed.

The minister has said he has changed the government's commitment slightly. The Premier said publicly 'state government funded, non-government organisations providing services'; however, the minister's commitment in this chamber is 'providing disability and other community services', which is fair enough. The government is therefore conceding it has promised to provide funding to state government funded NGOs providing other community services, not just disability services, in particular the shelter sector, as was raised by the Hon. Michelle Lensink.

My understanding of that sector is that it provides a community service and that it is provided with state government—and I also think federal government—funding. So, on the basis of the minister's commitment in this chamber, he has committed this government to provide additional funding to compensate those NGOs if (a) they provide a community service, which clearly they do, and (b) they receive state government funding. Is that a fair interpretation of the commitment given by the minister in this chamber this morning, on behalf of the government?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I think I have answered that question on a number of occasions. The Premier made a commitment to give additional costs of those state-funded NGOs delivering disability and other community services on those nights, and we stand by that commitment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Can the minister advise the committee, based on this commitment, the scope of the actual dollar cost? How much of the $5 million will that area actually—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: This is in addition to the $5 million.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: This is in addition to the $5 million, okay. Can the minister advise the committee how much money that will cost, in addition to what was committed to before, with respect to the NGOs? What will it cost? What is the dollar figure?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I do not have the dollar figure on me, but I will make this clear: I have already stated—and I think this is the fourth time I have stated this—that going from 5pm to 7pm reduces the public holiday from seven hours to five hours. The saving out of the $5 million that we have indicated it will cost the government will help fund our commitment to the NGOs that are delivering disability and community services. I do not think it can be much clearer than that.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: There is no clarity in that at all. Clearly, I would assume that Treasury—being as diligent as they are—would have done a detailed cost analysis on this, and I think it is fair and reasonable that the parliament is advised of the cost. So, can the minister make an undertaking, between now and when we resume this discussion after private members', to actually table in the house what that cost is? I think it is only fair and reasonable that we know.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Treasury has provided us with financial information that indicates that the total cost to the government for this legislation will be $5 million. There will be a significant saving from those two hours, which will be used to fund the non-government sector. As to the actual dollar amount, we will have to see whether that has been done, but what that has to do with the context of this debate and the bill I do not know.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: We have $5 million. What else do you want?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I know that once you get past five fingers you do have a bit of a problem, but it is $5 million. What else did you want to know?

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Lucas, do you intend to move your amendment?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, Mr Chairman. Thank you for the invitation. The minister's incompetence and naivety, and a whole range of other things, are well demonstrated by that last extraordinary response: 'What on earth has the cost of this legislation on the state budget got to do with this bill?' That is the response from the minister in this government, saying, 'What on earth has the cost of this to the budget, to the taxpayers of South Australia, got to do with this particular bill?' That is the response from the minister, who says, 'Stuff the taxpayers of South Australia; stuff the people who might be struggling for a few hundred dollars or a thousand dollars from the government for a particular service or community; it's only $5 million.'

The CHAIR: Order! Have you got a question?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, the standing orders do not require questions solely in the committee stage debate. You should understand that, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: They do not require second reading speeches either.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, and I am not giving one. I am responding to what the minister has just said. The standing orders do not require just questions: they require consideration of the debate, and members are not restricted in terms of the number of times they are entitled to put and respond to what the minister was allowed to say in the committee stage of the debate. You did not rule him out of order in relation to that, and it is an extraordinary response to say, 'Stuff the expense. It's only $5 million, give or take, or whatever it happens to be, and what has that got to do with the legislation?' Where the minister is also extraordinarily incompetent or naive, or both, is—

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Point of order. The Hon. Mr Lucas has been here long enough to know that—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: 'Incompetent' is unparliamentary.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Yes; he should not be calling the minister incompetent in relation to clause 1 of this debate.

The CHAIR: Mr Lucas has been here long enough to know he should be getting on with it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: How sensitive are we when 'incompetent and naive' is deemed to be unparliamentary by the next president?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Self-identified.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Indeed, he did use that phrase himself. The minister did use that phrase himself. We should call on him to withdraw and apologise for calling himself a dickhead, but we will not; that is up to him. That was certainly unparliamentary language that he used in the chamber.

The point that I am trying to make to the minister, who is obviously flustered on this particular issue, is that the government's initial estimate of $5 million, as he identified, was on the basis of the original deal done with the SDA, which was 5 o'clock to midnight. What has occurred since then—perhaps it has escaped the attention of the minister—is that two key things have happened: the government has actually backed down and has compromised on the time, which is 7 o'clock instead of 5 o'clock.

Even the minister perhaps should understand that, by doing that, that affects the estimate of $5 million. As he indicated, it is likely to reduce the state budget cost as a result of that. Subsequently, the government has done an unspecific deal in relation to funding all non-government organisations which are state funded and which provide any disability or community service, which will obviously increase the potential cost. The $5 million cost is on a past deal and a past arrangement; it is not what we are being asked to vote on at the moment. What we are being asked to vote on at the moment is a different deal in at least two key respects.

The question from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and myself, and I assume other members as well, is: what is the Treasury estimate of this current deal that the state government is asking the parliament to support? It is an issue for the taxpayers of South Australia as to what the cost to them will be of the final deal that is there—not what the original proposal was from weeks or months ago, but what the proposal is now in relation to what we are being asked to vote on. So, my question to the minister, following on from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is: what is Treasury's current estimate, with both of those changes now incorporated, to the budget of South Australia?

As I said in the second reading, and I am seeking it from the minister: what are the departmental breakdowns of that, because Treasury collected that information from each of the departments before they compiled their estimate of $5 million. They did not just pluck a figure out of the air; they went to each of the departments and agencies—in particular the key ones—which would obviously be health and community services or equivalent departments, probably transport, emergency services, and a range of departments like that which are providing 24-hour services right across the board.

Now, subsequent to that, we have this additional cost for shelters, disability services—any community service—so the message goes out to any organisation that provides any community service, and gets any state government funding that, if their costs are increased as a result of this deal, the government and this minister have given you a commitment that they will fund you for that increased cost, and that is important for all those organisations to know.

My question to the minister—as I raised in general terms in the second reading, and he did not reply at the response to the second reading—is: what is Treasury's latest estimate and what are the departmental breakdowns of that estimate? I do not expect the minister to have the departmental breakdowns here unless he already has them from his advisers. We put the question on notice yesterday, so they have had 24 hours but, certainly, when we continue this debate, whenever that is, we will be seeking that information from the minister. However, he certainly should have today—now—what the estimated total cost is. He can't get away with, 'Hey, this has got nothing to do with the bill,' because this is, in essence, what the cost to the taxpayers will be of this bill with the key changes that have now been negotiated.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I must say that the only contempt shown to taxpayers of this state is not from me, it is from the opposition benches. I made it quite clear from the beginning that Treasury has advised that the cost to the taxpayer of this state will be $5 million—arising out of a negotiated outcome where the number of hours has been reduced from seven to five hours—and has given enough funding to cover the additional cost of those state-funded NGOs delivering disability and other community service on those nights.

So, I do not know how much clearer I can be, that the cost of this arrangement with regards to the disability sector and community services will be made up of that significant saving from paying the wages of public servants for those two hours of public holidays. So, $5 million is the cost, and that is the answer that you will get for the next question and the next question, and I think we should move on to a lot more important questions.

The CHAIR: Are you moving something?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: It is clause 1, sir. These are all important questions, properly covering the due diligence of this bill. I ask the minister, is this disability compensation agreement the subject of a memorandum of understanding or other signed agreement? What written commitment is there to the disability sector with respect to the press release?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Can you ask that question again, please?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Sure. I ask the minister whether or not the government has completed a written memorandum of understanding with the disability sector through the Hon. Kelly Vincent, or what other agreement has the government signed off to honour its press release commitment to fund these NGOs that provide state government services?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The Premier has given a commitment that there will be funding for the extra cost incurred by the disability sector and community services on those nights. The Premier has given a commitment; he has given it publicly, and he will honour that commitment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Based on that, I foreshadow that we may have to consider a further amendment to protect the sector. At this point in time, can the minister confirm with the house that the verbal commitment, the oral commitment, that has been made by the Premier does include the other add-on costs over and above the wages, such as the costs for superannuation? I also request that the minster advises whether that is in the forward estimates.

In the forward estimates of this—and I do understand that the Treasurer has factored that $5 million into the forward estimates, but further to that in the forward estimates—given that superannuation is going to go from 9 per cent to 12 per cent during that forward estimate period, there is an additional cost there as well. There are leave loading costs that are brought in and other add-on costs—other input costs over and above the base rate. Can the minister confirm that all those other input costs over the base rate will be paid for by the government?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The Treasury has advised us that the cost which would include anything else over wages, the total cost, will be $5 million. I do not know what else the member wants me to give him, but $5 million is the cost.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Obviously, some members cannot come to grips with this but, because of the fact that we have saved around about 20 per cent because of the hours, that will fund the disability sector and the community services.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I will explain it to the minister, and I will try to do it slowly and simply. If the worker is on $20 an hour on these two half public holidays that are now going to be passed, the $20 an hour becomes 250 per cent. So the first question is: will there be $50 an hour funded for the base rate for those nights? That is the first question.

Secondly, on top of that—and I hope the minister has some comprehension of this—that is not the total cost to an employer. You would have WorkCover, for a start, which would be, I would estimate, on top of that probably another $2 an hour. Then you have other input costs that deliver a total amount of money per hour to that employee. I need to know, on behalf of constituents who are concerned that they will be left out in the cold on this, whether or not the government has factored in all these things—it is a fair and reasonable question—and not just on the base rate of salary but the other input costs to that hourly rate for that NGO.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I have been advised, and I think I have stated here on a number of occasions, that the $5 million which has been committed by the government to fund this includes on-costs. I do not know how many ways I can say this, but it does include on-costs. It also includes support for the community and disabilities sector as an outcome of the arrangements with the Hon. Kelly Vincent.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for acknowledging that the $5 million is going to cover the on-costs of the particular organisations that are going to be funded, but I ask the minister to clarify the figure he is quoting, which is the $1,000 figure. I suspect that does not include the on-cost figure, the figure he has been quoting. I ask him to clarify that that figure does not include WorkCover, payroll, superannuation and a variety of other figures. I ask the minister to confirm whether or not the figure he has been quoting during this debate does include on-costs, as he has been claiming.

In relation to this $5 million figure, again, I just say that this chamber should not be asked to vote finally on this bill without actually knowing what the final estimate to the taxpayers will be for the bill. The minister can argue for as long as he wishes that there will be some savings from the original $5 million because of the reduction in hours but there will be some increased costs because of the disability sector and other community services that are being provided.

What we are asking him is: what is Treasury's estimate now of the total cost to taxpayers? It might well be that it is $4 million, or $4.5 million, or $4.75 million, or something, but this place is entitled to know, on the basis of what is now the final deal—not the original deal—what the cost to taxpayers is going to be and what the cost to the individual agencies, in particular the key ones that I have highlighted, is going to be.

I do not think that anyone can argue that that is an unreasonable question in relation to a piece of legislation that is going through the parliament; that is, what is the cost to taxpayers of the final deal (not the original deal) that has been negotiated? The minister can bluff and bluster as much as he wishes and say, 'The original estimate was $5 million.' Well, that is the original estimate for the original deal. That is not what we are being asked to vote on.

I do not know what it would take to get through the head of the minister in charge of the bill that we are actually talking about a different bill and a different deal, and therefore we are talking about different total costs. That is all this committee is asking and, if the minister had been prepared to answer that question, a lot of the time of this committee could have been saved.

It is the minister, through his refusal to answer reasonable questions, who is delaying unnecessarily the committee stage of this debate. On behalf of members, I express some concern at his intransigence and his refusal to assist the committee in terms of what are reasonable questions on the debate.

I am hoping that, when this committee continues the debate on the committee stage of the bill, the minister will have taken advice from Treasury, as he was asked to do yesterday, and will bring back to the committee at the very least some estimate of what the total costs are going to be to the taxpayers of South Australia. That is not an unreasonable question and request of the minister.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: What we have here is an example of a delaying tactic. I have given the answer in this chamber that the original arrangement in the bill of from 5pm to midnight would cost the government $5 million, including on-costs. Since then, through negotiation, the hour has been changed to 7 o'clock. So, that is a saving of two hours. Out of that saving, off the top of my head, $1 million will go to funding NGOs, disability services and community services. I do not know how much clearer I can be, Mr Chairman. I think it is a recalcitrant opposition; they just refuse to accept the answers. I think we should just move on to the next question.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Most of Family First's questions are in clause 1. We will not be interfering much with many clauses after clause 1. So, this is the clause where we need some answers, and we have not got the answers yet. I will expect some tabling of those costs. My next question of the minister is: do the disability compensation measures extend to disabled persons being cared for within an aged-care home?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The arrangements will enable us to fund the additional costs of those state-funded NGOs delivering disability and other community services on those nights. So, state-funded NGOs, disability services and other community services will be the ones that will benefit from the arrangements.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has a follow-up.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I do have a follow-up. I take that that is a no, or can the minister clarify this question? It is very important; the state government, I understand, has an obligation to at least these 156 people. I really need a yes or no as to whether or not they will be part of the compensation package or whether, through inadvertent situations, they will not be part of the compensation package. If he cannot answer that now, can the minister make a commitment to bring back an answer through the further deliberation of the clauses?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I will seek an answer specifically for the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. But I will say this: there is a commitment to fund non-government and state-funded organisations that deliver disability and other community services. Once again, I do not see how much clearer we can be in regard to this issue.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Can I clarify that the budget contribution to cover the cost of the public sector will include the disability and community services provided by government agencies, such as Disability SA?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I will seek to get that information.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Some further questions to the minister: what happens in the disability compensation arrangements if the government moves finally to a self-managed funding model, which the disability sector wants for clients and which I think most members of the parliament support? All the indicators are that they are going to move that way. How will the compensation then be paid? Will it be paid to the client? Will it go through the NGO? If the client decides not to have an NGO at all, will there be a direct payment to the client? Can the minister assure the house that in the case of a client being self-managed, they will not be disadvantaged with any of this top-up that the government has made a commitment to with this sector?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The Premier has given a commitment to the sector, so I fully support that. I am sure that no matter what arrangements are made in regard to the disability sector that they will not be disadvantaged. If the government has given a commitment, they will stick by that commitment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I ask the minister then during deliberations on further clauses to bring back to this house a specific answer to that question because I think it is a very important question that is going to have enormous impact if we do not get the right response in the forward years. I remind members that this is not just for one year; this is for perpetuity.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I could reiterate the question of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire: as I understand the government's commitment, it is only to fund non-government organisations providing disability services. The point the Hon. Mr Brokenshire very rightly makes is that under the self-managed funding, a person with a disability could be directly employing a person. They might be directly employing their care worker; that is the whole point. So the government's commitment as it is currently expressed—for example, NGO organisations would not provide assurance. I take the minister at his word and I would seek confirmation at a later stage that that will apply to individuals who are employing directly their carers.

The CHAIR: The minister made that commitment to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I have already made that commitment. Let's put this in perspective.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: These are people with disabilities. You be careful.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Yes—we are talking about 10 hours in a year. The government has given a commitment to cover the costs. I think that should be taken for its word. The Premier has given that commitment and I am quite happy here to give this commitment to this chamber, but I still think we should put it in perspective that the number of hours in a year that we are talking about is 10 hours. I know for a fact and have total confidence that the Premier will stick by the arrangements he has made with the sector.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I asked the minister with the other questions that we have basically put on notice for him to come back with: will the minister, if he cannot do it now, give us the specific figures of estimates from Treasury on what the government's estimated saving in its public sector wage commitments are by the change from five to seven? That is a question you can take on notice, minister, and bring it back. He has nodded, so that is what I believe he intends to do.

I assume that a responsible and diligent government would have done a scoping on the cost to the private sector because we have heard during the debate in the second reading that there is going to be quite a cost across South Australia. I ask the minister, with the Treasury modelling or with your own department's modelling or in conjunction with other ministers like minister Koutsantonis, what is the government's estimated cost of the impact of the new part-day public holidays on the business sector across the state, including the other add-on costs such as superannuation, leave entitlements, payroll tax, etc.?

What is the actual cost to the South Australian private sector across all sectors of the state with respect to this decision? I think it is a pretty important question. I can assure the house that very many small family businesses are doing their homework now and finding out that it is not just a flippant 10 hours a year. So what has the government actually costed with their due diligence on this initiative?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: There are around about 8,500 hours in a year. This will account for 10 hours in a year. The government does not have the actual figures. It is almost impossible to work out the actual figures of what this is going to cost. I do know that the vast majority of people are not working on that day. The fact is that it is 10 hours out of over 8,500 hours and the government has considered that because of the importance of this legislation it is a cost that will be borne by private industry.

This is important legislation to this state. It is vital to the vibrancy of the city of Adelaide. It is in line with our strategic plan for developing the city of Adelaide into a place where people would want to come to work, play, live and enjoy. I put it to the honourable member that it is 10 hours out of over 8,600, and we consider that is a figure that will have to be borne by industry. Remember this: it has the support of the biggest business organisation in the state, Business SA, and Business SA would not have made this arrangement if it thought the cost was so significant.

For many years Business SA and Peter Vaughan, the CEO, have been looked upon as the true voice of business in this state. He has made an arrangement, and Business SA has endorsed that, in the best interests of the state, and we have a number of organisations that are upset with that provision. At the end of the day, for as long as I have known, Business SA has been the voice of business in this state. That may change in the future, I do not know, but I do realise this: Business SA would have taken into consideration the cost and the benefit to this state, and that is something that some people in this chamber are not taking into consideration.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The minister says Business SA has taken in all the costs. I would like to see that, just the same as I would like to see the scoping from the government. Just to get this very clear, because to me this is quite important—by the way, Business SA does not represent small business and small business is the engine room of this state—is the minister saying that this government has made this decision in a back room with a couple of people, but has not done any due diligence scoping studies or working and modelling whatsoever on what the total cost will be to business in South Australia? Is he saying they have done no work, yes or no?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The arrangement was endorsed by Business SA, which does represent small business, by the way, it represents numerous small businesses. The opposition has often come into this chamber defending the rights of Business SA. So, I think it deserves the respect it has earnt over many (probably) decades of good representation to this state. We are talking about 10 hours out of probably between 8,500 and 9,000 hours per year. We have taken the view that that cost is an acceptable cost.

The government has committed money ($5 million) towards our share to look after the costs that we will incur. We believe that for how significant this legislation is to this state, that cost is an acceptable cost. We also believe it is the right thing to do. This is the difference between members on this side of the chamber and some of the crossbenchers and the opposition. We believe that people have the right to be paid overtime rates, public holiday rates, on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. It is something we believe in. It is also reinforced by news polls that 80.6 per cent of people believe that people deserve higher rates of pay for working on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.

There is going to be a cost. We are not running away from that. We believe the cost is acceptable. The government believes the cost to the government is acceptable because of the importance of this bill and this legislation to the state of South Australia.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! I decide who gets the call, not you.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir; I appreciate that.

The CHAIR: We know there is a tag team going, but that's okay.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir. I advise the committee that I have only four other questions after this. I ask the minister, yes or no, for the public record; is it a yes that the government has done all this work on the impact to business in South Australia, or is it a no? I just want a yes or a no.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The government has taken into consideration that there are between 8,500 and 9,000 hours worked in a normal year; 10 hours is a reasonable cost to the community for the important reform that we will see arising from this bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister just indicated that he and the government have always believed that people who work on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve should be paid more in higher penalty rates. If that is the case, why didn't they make changes any time over the last 10 years?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: That question could be asked of thousands of different examples. The fact is that we have a bill here today, and we believe it is the right thing to do for those people, very often low-paid workers, giving them public holiday rates. There is overwhelming support from the public with regard to the belief that what we are doing is the right thing to do.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister has raised this particular issue in the debate; that is, that he and the government have always believed that these workers should be paid at a higher level. For much of the first part of the government's 10 years, because of the GST and a variety of other things, we were in a very healthy position with budget surpluses. At the moment we are in a position with $300 million to $400 million deficits.

If the government believes what it says it believes, why did it not just enter into industrial arrangements with those workers to pay them additional penalty rates or higher rates of pay? It did not need this particular legislation to increase the rates of pay of workers if it truly believed they should be paid more. At a time when we had plenty of money in the budget, why didn't the government enter into enterprise bargaining at that stage—which it would generally do on a three-year basis—with its workers, and say to the unions and others, 'We are prepared to increase your rates of pay on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve because we believe you are entitled to, and should be paid, a higher rate of pay'?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The government believes it is the appropriate thing to do—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Did you always believe this?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The government does believe it is the appropriate thing to do, and pay mostly low-paid workers overtime penalty rates. This provision arose out of a negotiated outcome between two of the major operators within the retail industry; that is, Business SA and the shop distributive union. It came to us, breaking down the years and years of ideological differences that have prevented shop trading on public holidays.

Part of that arrangement was also the part-public holidays, giving increases to lower-paid workers. The government embraced that idea. Not only did it allow the opening up of shop trading hours on public holidays but it also allowed us to reward and compensate people appropriately—and quite rightfully—for working on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. We make no apologies for that; we are actually quite proud of that concept.

I know that you despise it, I know that you must go to bed at night hating it. The reality is that we are proud of the fact—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The minister will make his comments through the chair.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I know that they hate the fact that we are getting lower-paid workers appropriate and justified wage compensation for working on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, but we are very proud of the fact, and look forward to the first time, this Christmas, when workers can be adequately compensated for working on those very special occasions.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Acting Chairman, I think the nonsense of the minister's argument is revealed by that particular response. If this indeed were something that he and they passionately believed in, they would have done something about it over the last 10 years. The reality is that the only reason they are doing this, and are using this as an argument, is because the shoppies union have come to them with the deal in relation to their rates of pay, and this particular device is being used as justification.

If they had truly believed in this, they would have done an equivalent thing (in terms of increasing rates of pay and penalty rates for their workers) at any time during the last 10 years. So, the nonsense that this is something they really believe is revealed for what it is: a nonsense. This minister and this government have not believed that at all; they have been happy to sit there, fat, dumb and mute, doing nothing for 10 years. It is only when the shoppies union said, 'You've got to do this,' that they have then used this as a particular argument to try and justify their support.

I do note that the minister keeps saying that this is only really about the low-paid workers. Does the minister say that our salaried medical officers, police officers, firefighters and nurses are the most lowly-paid workers in the South Australian community?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: No, by no means; we take pride in the fact that we adequately compensate our professional workers quite well. But, the vast majority of people who will be working on these days will be lower-paid workers—the vast majority. Of course, there will be a mixture of wage rates.

I would just like to say that it is all very well to ask why we have not implemented this over the 10 years, but I could ask the same question. The Liberal Party have a great tendency for wanting to totally reregulate shopping hours; why did they not do that back in their nine or 10 years in government? We could go on and on about this; the fact is, we have a bill here now. We are very proud of the fact that we are going to compensate workers for working on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, and we are looking forward to delivering their very first opportunity to be paid appropriately for those two evenings.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I just have a couple more questions, sir. As a point of clarification, because I think the minister may be trying to confuse the house; the minister said on several occasions that there are 8,000 hours, and only 10 of those are affected by this decision, which implies that all of those 8,000 are working hours. There are nowhere near 8,000 working hours in a year, sir; there may be 8,000 hours in a year, but they are not 8,000 working hours. I just want to put that on the public record, because this is the sort of spin that this government is going on with.

I have a question following on from that of the Hon. Rob Lucas yesterday, and also from advice received by many members from Minter Ellison. Yesterday, the minister gave an interesting response, and said that he had advice from SafeWork SA which basically refutes the situation. I ask: has the minister sought legal advice in response to the advice of Minter Ellison which was referred to by the Hon. Rob Lucas? In addition, if the minister has sought legal advice, when he tables the other responses on notice can he also table to the house the legal advice that confirms what SafeWork SA is reported to have said with respect to the difference between the advice of Minter Ellison and what the minister told the house yesterday?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: SafeWork SA did a report on the advice from Minter Ellison. That was run by crown law to find out if they support that, and I do have responses here. I am quite happy to read it out if you wish.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Thank you.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Minter Ellison:

Implications of new part-day public holidays in South Australia.

If passed, the Bill has the potential to impact SA employees and employers, irrespective of their hours of operation on 24 December and 31 December.

For most employers, industrial implications of the new part public holidays from 7pm until 12 midnight on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve will be the same as the industrial implications of any other public holiday.

The general principle for dealing with public holidays is that:

a) a worker may reasonably refuse work on a public holiday;

b) if you work a public holiday you get compensated by being paid appropriate penalty rates;

c) if you would normally work on a day of the week that is a public holiday but because it's a public holiday your employer is closed, you don't suffer any reduction in pay;

d) if you wouldn't normally work on the day of the week that is a public holiday, you don't get paid;

For example, a full-time worker who works their 5 day 38 hour week from Tuesday to Saturday does not gain any benefit from the several public holidays that fall on a Monday. Likewise, there are many part-time workers who do not work every day of the week and gain no benefit from a public holiday that occurs on a day they wouldn't ordinarily work.

I have just been advised that this is advice from SafeWork SA. It has not gone through the Crown Solicitor. It is advice from SafeWork SA, which is this state's body that looks after the industrial interests. If anyone would have—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It continues that section 114 provides the reasonable right to refuse work on a day or part day—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Do you want to hear the advice?

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Yes.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It states:

Section 114 provides the reasonable right to refuse work on a day or part-day that is a public holiday. There has been no dispute to date that this will mean these rights are available to workers between the hours of 7.00pm and 12 midnight on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.

This year alone, New South Wales has 13 regional part-day public holidays declared pursuant to their Holidays Act.

Most of these part-day public holidays have been observed for many years and I have been advised there have not been dire industrial consequences arising in New South Wales before or since the introduction of the current national industrial relations system.

This is from Minter Ellison:

In many instances, the interplay between the part-day public holidays and provisions of modern awards and enterprise agreements will either provide an additional cost to employers, uncertainty for employers in how to correctly pay employees or create a direct conflict between State law and particular industrial instruments.

Examples provided by Minter Ellison are: the manufacturing award and hospital award, rostered days off; hospital award and licensed club award, annualised salary arrangements; the clerks award and the vehicle award, shift commencement late at night; and the Coca-Cola agreement and premium wine agreement, part-day public holidays.

This is our answer:

Questions have been raised about the public holiday provisions in several Modern Awards and Enterprise Agreements.

Of the examples regarding the potential conflict between State law and industrial instruments, some public holiday provisions appear to have been drafted on the basis that all public holidays are full 24 hour day. The introduction of part-day public holidays does not necessarily conflict with these examples and in many cases the provisions may not even apply.

Most enterprise agreements are negotiated by the employer or their representatives and the employees or their relevant union and then approved by Fair Work Australia. If parties are concerned about any interpretational and application problems arising from the two December part public holidays then they have the opportunity between now and the end of the year to seek guidance from Fair Work Australia. Minter Ellison states:

Employees who are required to work between 7.00pm and midnight on a part-day public holiday will be entitled to applicable penalty rates. A penalty rate of 250% of an employees' base rate is common across modern awards and enterprise agreements.

SafeWork has advised:

Workers will be paid in accordance with their relevant industrial instrument. Most Modern awards prescribe a public holiday penalty rate of double time and a half. This will generally not equate to a full 150% more than what employers are paying now because working after 7.00pm on a weeknight usually attracts an additional penalty in any event.

In some years Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve will fall on a weekend. Saturday and Sunday rates can be anywhere between time and a half and double time, therefore the increase to rates of pay when the public holiday kicks in at 7.00pm will be less again. The Australian Hotels Association has been one of the loudest opponents of these proposed part-day public holidays yet their South Australian members remain subject to special provisions until 1 January 2015 that allows them to continue to pay casual staff a flat rate of pay for all hours worked including on public holidays.

It is not too presumptuous to suggest that for many years the local hotel industry has predominantly engaged casual employees on weekends and public holidays for this very reason. And we can presume that they will continue to do so until 2015.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have two final questions. Does the minister intend, as is normal practice in these sorts of matters, to seek crown law advice on the Minter Ellison legal advice, or is the minister happy to sit with SafeWork SA?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I have total confidence in the advice I received from SafeWork SA. They have provided advice to me with regard to the advice by Minter Ellison and they have come back, after much research, with answers. I have total faith in them: yes, if I had the choice between choosing the advice from SafeWork SA and Minter Ellison, I think I would go with SafeWork SA.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: With the greatest of respect to the hardworking public servants within SafeWork SA, and I make no specific criticism of them, the foolishness of the minister is well demonstrated by his last statement. One can support one's public servants who are hardworking in their particular areas of competence but significant legal issues and concerns have been raised by one of the leading law firms in the state—one which, minister, your agency, WorkCover, has been quite happy to contract under monopoly arrangements, but put that to the side for the moment.

Those significant legal issues have been raised and the minister has stood up in this house and said, 'Even though I've got significant legal advice available to me through crown law, etc., I am not even going to refer these issues to crown law for legal advice: I am going to rely on the hardworking public servants within SafeWork SA.' Almost by an accident of history, the Shop Trading Hours Act resides with them. Shop trading hours, as is evident by its name, is not really the stuff that relates solely to occupational health and safety legislation and safe work arrangements but, through an accident of history over a period of time, that is where the expertise has resided within the public sector.

I am not making any criticism of that and the hardworking officers, but they are not the highly trained legal advisers to the government on complex legal issues. The minister stood up in the house and said, 'Well, too bad, that's where I'm going to get my legal advice,' but I am sure if he was to end up in court being sued for defamation or something he would not say, 'I'm not going to go to the lawyers in the crown, I am going to get the officers in my department to give me the legal advice and I will be very happy to take their advice over any competent legal advice that I might otherwise have available to me.' Who is he seeking to fool other than himself in relation to this issue?

It is just a clear demonstration, if we have ever needed it, of the undoubted incompetence of this particular minister in terms of anything his sticky fingerprints get across. It does not matter what it is—in this case we are talking about shop trading hours—his incompetence is well demonstrated to his colleagues, both ministerial and backbench, and to us in the chamber. To have actually got these significant issues, which we will obviously need to pursue now in the later committee stages of this piece of legislation, and to say, 'I don't need legal advice on this issue; I am not even going to go to crown law to seek legal advice on it; I am the minister and I have got the public servants in SafeWork SA and we are the experts in terms of the legal implications of the legislation,' is just, as I said, if we needed it, another demonstration of the minister's incompetence in relation to the issue before us.

That is particularly the case as he stood up in this chamber and said at the outset that this was advice that had been referred to the crown. When the minister, just off the cliff, was quite happy to make that claim, there was an anxious look from advisers saying, 'Whoops, he's done it again! He has misled the committee. He has said, 'This has been referred to crown law for advice and this is the legal advice.' Of course, the note came to him indicating, 'Minister, foot in mouth again. Another mistake, sadly. You're wrong. This hasn't gone to crown.'

The CHAIR: Stick to the point.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, we are, Mr Chairman; we are indeed. The minister is the one who said that this was advice that had gone to the crown. That was his claim to the committee. As I have said, Mr Chairman—

The CHAIR: You're being—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, he keeps making these sorts of mistakes and misleading the committee. It is like the ducks at the gallery. It is just like picking him off, sometimes it is just too easy, Mr Chairman, as he stands up and makes yet another faux pas, or error, in terms of his advice to the committee.

So, it is important because of the issues that were raised in the second reading. I know that other members have had that, and I was the first speaker. I raised the issues on behalf of members who had received that advice from Minter Ellison in relation to some detailed legal implications of the legislation. As I have said, and we will need to pursue this in the later stages of the committee stage, we have seen again another national industry group now taking similar legal advice from their own legal counsel indicating that they, in broad terms, are agreeing with a number of the legal implications that have been raised by Minter Ellison.

I must admit that, when I saw the response last night, and heard part of the response from the minister, I assumed that SafeWork SA had worked with crown law in terms of giving the government's legal advice on it. It is not an unreasonable expectation. I will be honest and say that he did not actually say that yesterday. He said today that it was based on crown law advice, but last night he did not say that; he just said that this was SafeWork SA's compilation of responses, and I just assumed that that would have been based on legal advice available both to SafeWork SA and to the minister. But, as we have seen with this minister, it is best not to assume anything. We have now finally had revealed that this was not based on legal advice at all. This is the view of the hardworking public servants within SafeWork SA who manage the shop trading legislation.

In the end, I do not believe that it will be those officers when we come to industrial arrangements interpretation of this bill, together with the enterprise bargaining arrangements that already exist within the government, the modern awards implications as they exist with Public Service workers and others. It will not be the hardworking public servants within SafeWork SA who will be marched out to provide the legal advice to the government on what does this all actually mean. It will probably be the lawyers. That is probably the sensible place to get legal advice in relation to these sorts of issues, together with the IR experts that exist within the Public Service as well. I have a range of other issues on this, but lunchtime beckons.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The advice received from Minter Ellison is highly qualified, and how it will apply is their interpretation. There is a department within SafeWork SA that deals with inquiries on modern awards. They are experts in that field, and they work on behalf of the Fair Work Ombudsman. So, I do have confidence in the interpretation they give me in regard to how these issues will apply in the modern awards.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:15]