STATUTES AMENDMENT (SHOP TRADING AND HOLIDAYS) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Members, I understand that the minister has some answers to questions that he wishes to bring to the attention of the committee. The minister.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Thank you, Mr Acting Chair. Treasury has modelled the total additional costs of the part-day public holidays for public sector wage costs and assistance to state government-funded, non-government organisations at a total cost of $4.65 million. To clarify this, the figure covers all extra wage costs of the public sector workers who would be working at this time, such as nurses, police, emergency workers and the like.

This sum also includes assistance to state-funded NGO services which have employees providing services at the times of these part-day holidays, which covers Families SA, Disability Services, Office for the Ageing, Housing SA and the Mental Health Unit. Based on the Treasury advice, these estimates allow for any related on-costs.

Members will note that this figure is less than the initial $5 million figure quoted, despite including the extra commitment to state-funded NGOs. The government will allow for these costs in forward budget measures. It is a good figure. I thank the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Ms Kelly Vincent for their efforts. They were prepared to sit with the government, express their concerns and reach an acceptable outcome for these negotiations.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We thank the minister for that. It took us two hours this morning with the minister saying that he would not and that it was $5 million. I think that shows the value of the Legislative Council being persistent in terms of seeking information which is reasonable; that is, this chamber is being asked to vote on a new deal, not the $5 million deal that was being discussed in the House of Assembly. The position the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, myself and others were putting was that it is a reasonable proposition that this chamber should be informed as to what Treasury's position is in relation to the estimated cost of this deal, and the minister has relayed the information from Treasury to indicate that it is an additional cost of $4.65 million per year, which is $350,000 less than the original additional estimated cost.

I think, as we teased out this morning, the minister indicated that clearly there is a saving, given that the deal is for two hours less, but there are the additional costs of the commitment the minister and the Premier have given on behalf of the government that all state government funded NGOs which provide disability and other community services will receive additional compensation or funding for those that are operating during the particular hours that we are talking about.

I am sure all members will highlight to their constituents and organisations that they are familiar with, such as the ones that we raised earlier today (the Hon. Michelle Lensink mentioned women's shelters, youth shelters, men's shelters and a variety of other organisations that provide community services around the clock), that there may well be increased costs for those services during the particular period. So I thank the minister for that.

I am sure that if the minister is prepared to provide answers like that without having to wait for two hours (it is like extracting teeth), this committee stage can progress much more quickly from our viewpoint. We are not interested in delaying the proceedings of the committee without good cause or reason. All we are seeking to have put on the record are the facts in relation to the deal and answers to various questions that have been raised with us by concerned stakeholders and others.

One of the questions which I put to the minister during the second reading contribution yesterday and which he has not yet addressed was in relation to the rostering arrangements of the key professional groups that the government has talked about within the public sector—I say, advisedly, police, nurses, salaried medical officers, fireys, ambulance officers, etc. I put a specific question to the minister and I wonder whether he has now received advice: he has had almost 24 hours since my contribution.

My question is this. Under the current enterprise bargaining arrangements for police officers, for example, because of their peculiarities in relation to their shift arrangements (the Hon. Mr Brokenshire referred to this) which go overnight on New Year's Eve, there are unusual provisions within their enterprise agreement which have been there for many years.

My question in relation to the police is, first: for those police officers who are rostered on duty on New Year's Eve or Christmas Eve commencing their shift at 2 o'clock and concluding a shift at 10 o'clock, in the normal circumstances under this proposed deal, is it the case that the first five hours of their shift will be during what I would term ordinary hours and the remaining three hours of their shift will be during the 250 per cent penalty rate provisions of the part-time public holiday?

In relation to the police officers enterprise bargaining arrangement, will those police officers only be paid the penalty rate for the three hours from between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock? Can the minister assure the committee that police officers, in terms of their current EBA, will not be paid penalty rates for the first five hours of that shift from 2 o'clock to 7 o'clock?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Between 2pm and 7pm, ordinary rates plus afternoon shift allowance of 15 per cent; 7pm till 10pm on a public holiday period, if Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve are part public holidays, the public holiday not being a Sunday, ordinary rates plus 150 per cent in lieu of any other penalty rates payable; and public holiday, not being a Sunday to areas where there are flexible shift allowances, ordinary rates plus 18.5 per cent plus 150 per cent.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We are moving swimmingly, thank you very much for that. The minister would appear to have (perhaps) advice relating to the other three categories; that is, nurses, fire officers and salaried medical officers. If he does, is he prepared to put that information on the record in relation to exactly the same question?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Medical practitioner group employees: from 2pm till 7pm medical practitioner employees will be paid a shift penalty of 15 per cent for their hourly rate if they commence work on or after midday, or a shift penalty of 15 per cent for weekend work. From 7pm till 10pm, public holiday periods, if Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve are declared part public holidays, medical practitioner group employees rostered to work on a public holiday will be paid an additional 150 per cent shift penalty for their hourly rate. Where a public holiday falls between Monday and Friday and the medical practitioner does not work because it is a rostered day off the employee will be entitled to have one day of annual leave for each public holiday.

Nurses: 2pm till 7pm, Monday to Friday, ordinary rates plus 12.5 per cent in addition to the ordinary hourly rate; Saturday, ordinary rates plus 15 per cent; Sunday, ordinary rates plus 75 per cent; 7pm till 10pm on a public holiday period, if Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve are declared part public holidays, employees, other than casual employees or an employee with no fixed hours, on a public holiday must be paid at the rate of 250 per cent. For casuals, ordinary hours on a public holiday must be paid at the rate of 170 per cent, inclusive of 20 per cent casual loading.

Firefighters: shift penalties. Employees are paid at a composite rate of 31.83 per cent in lieu of shift allowances, weekend and public holiday penalty rates. Time off in lieu may be available for overtime worked.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I just clarify with the fire officers: for all the other occupations the minister seemed to indicate that between 7pm and 10pm the officers would be paid, in essence, the 250 per cent penalty rate for that three hour period. In relation to fire officers, was the minister's answer that they would not be paid the 250 per cent?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Apparently, the firefighters have a special enterprise agreement, they have a an hourly rate and all of those shift allowances are put into the hourly rate, and they get—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: They get time off in lieu is what you are saying?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Time off in lieu may be available for overtime worked.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Can I clarify that for overtime work? Let us assume this is just a normal shift, not overtime work, is the minister indicating that they would not be getting time off in lieu in relation to working between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock on that particular night in the example I have given, they would just be getting whatever that percentage penalty written into their overall rate would be, but they would not get time off in lieu for working a normal shift during that particular period? That was the example I gave, and not an example in relation to overtime.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The employees are paid a composite rate of 31.83 per cent in lieu of shift allowances, weekend and public holiday penalty rates. Time off in lieu provisions do provide for time off in lieu and may be available for overtime worked.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Only for overtime?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Overtime.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Whilst I also appreciate the fact that the minister has brought some clarity to the issues around costings, the minister has not advised the committee about whether or not the government this year and into the forward estimates has also factored in, within that amount of money, the on-costs, that is, superannuation, other leave entitlements, payroll tax, and the list goes on. Can the minister advise the committee what he actually found out with respect to the request that I put to him earlier in this debate?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Members will also note that this figure is less than the initial $5 million figure quoted, despite including the extra commitment to state funded NGOs. Based on Treasury advice, these estimates allow for any related on-costs. The government will allow for these costs in the forward budget measures.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have tried to pursue an answer to this in this chamber and also in media discussions on this proposal. No-one has been able to explain it to me yet, and I trust that this minister will. My question is a simple question. We have been told that there is an interlocking between the issue and debate on deregulating and ensuring vibrancy in the CBD and its precinct and the fact that retail sector workers must have two half public holidays to ensure that they get some financial benefit, notwithstanding that most of the people who I have had contact with in the retail sector do not want to work on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, and I would also suggest Maundy Thursday or Good Friday even.

Can the minister articulate for once on behalf of his government why we have to have this interlocking? Why is it that we cannot break up the debate, and why it is it that legislation was not put forward simply on deregulating vibrancy opportunities for the CBD? Can the minister explain why it has to be interlocked?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The Hon. Robert Brokenshire has asked the question about why the bill is a package. The bill is an essential part of the package, a reform package to revitalise Adelaide while maintaining the values that are most important to South Australians. This bill does this in a very basic way. It deregulates shop trading hours in the CBD, the tourist precinct, on most public holidays, and it provides workers with protections and entitlements when requested to work after 5pm on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. It reduces red tape.

By declaring this a public holiday, it falls under the national employment standards. That then allows employees to reasonably refuse to work on that day—and that is the important element—and it also allows for those people who do decide to work on those two part public holidays to be paid appropriately in the form of public holiday rates.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am still confused. I am a simple country boy, and I guess I do not understand some of these complexities, but I cannot understand the interlocking. Can you explain this to me? If, indeed, you talk about equity, fairness and the importance of award payments and penalties for half public holidays and the like, why did the government not look at what I think is a real impost on the retail sector; that is, for many of them the one opportunity they have for some family time in the retail sector is the four-day Easter period? Yet, whilst you have been so full on about Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, you have not gone anywhere near the other major imposts to people working in retail, and that is Good Friday eve. Can you explain the rationale of that to this committee?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I think there are only two eves of special importance in this debate. You do not have the Good Friday eve. I have never heard anyone say, 'I cannot wait for Good Friday eve.' I have never heard anyone say 'I have got Australia Day eve.'

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Will you allow me to finish without rudely interrupting? We have a Christmas Eve and we have a New Year's Eve. They are special occasions. One is a religious occasion when people are home with their families. People are home on Christmas Eve very often wrapping presents, putting their kids to bed, getting the Christmas tree ready, doing things, singing carols. It is a family occasion and it is one of those special occasions of the year. New Year's Eve is a time when most of us are out celebrating. It is probably the most celebrated time of the year. It is when most of us are out celebrating.

They are the two special eves of the year, and we think it is quite appropriate that when people are required to work or volunteer to work under the National Employment Standards, they will be compensated appropriately with public holiday rates. Also, I will say you are telling us you are confused. Were you offered a briefing? Did you take a briefing?

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Mate, I've had briefings from everyone. I've had 1,500 postcards, 1,100 emails. I've had lots of briefings.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: You never asked; at no time did the honourable member ask for a briefing from SafeWork—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: He should not be confused.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: He should be very well in line. I would say that you are not confused; you are just trying to stall the debate.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I see. Well, I just need one more point on the public record then based on the answer from our illustrious minister. That question is a simple one: is the minister saying on behalf of his government that Good Friday eve is not a special religious eve like Christmas Eve? Is the minister saying that Good Friday is not as relevant as Christmas Day? I want an answer because that is what you have implied.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: We have chosen New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve as the two eves that are particularly special. These are the eves that the government has decided to declare part public holidays. Can you imagine the outcry from the honourable member if we actually did decide to put Good Friday eve? We would not hear the end of it. We are quite relaxed. We are proud of the fact that we are offering working people the right to voluntarily choose to work on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. Those who want to be home with their families or out celebrating on New Year's Eve will be given the opportunity to make that decision also.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As tempting as it is to nail the minister on that issue, I will not because I would be just re-entering the second reading debate again and—

The CHAIR: And that would be totally out of order.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —I don't intend to do that. I am seeking answers to questions during the committee stage on behalf of stakeholders and constituents. I raised in the second reading a concern raised by the Printing Industries Association. It crosses over some of the issues in the Minter Ellison advice to which I wish to return.

The letter from Mr Peter Mansfield, General Manager SA/NT—and I think in the second reading I referred to some advice some country news editors on Yorke Peninsula had raised with the member for Goyder about their concerns in relation to it. The minister has not specifically responded to these issues and I would ask him to address them, as I suspect he has got advice on it, and then I want to move on to the Minter Ellison specific issues which still remain unanswered. Mr Mansfield wrote to me and said:

A number of our member printing businesses have staff who work regular shifts covering the 5pm to midnight hours. If this bill becomes law, it appears that these staff will have the choice as to whether or not they work the critical production shifts on Christmas and New Year's Eve. If they do choose to work, they will be entitled to public holiday penalty rates. In addition, if this bill becomes law, it appears that all other staff, whether they usually work these hours or not, will be entitled to paid time off in lieu for these additional public holidays, consistent with every other public holiday.

In an email exchange with those local editors and others, Mr Mansfield further explained his position. Mr Mansfield, in an email exchange with the Managing Editor of the Yorke Peninsula Country Times, a very prominent regional newspaper, said:

Our greater concern is not about the loading but that all employees, whether they work at that time or not, will be granted payment in lieu of the two additional declared public holidays. I won't bore you by quoting chapter and verse, but case law precedent has been set from previous test cases for this scenario and the ruling has been that one group of employees cannot be discriminated against in relation to public holidays; therefore, all employees must be paid in lieu regardless of whether they are working at the time or not.

It is a bit like Christmas Day when it falls on a weekend. My contract of employment is from Monday to Friday, so I'm technically not working on the public holiday, but I get paid a 'Mondayised' public holiday day. It's the likelihood of this (unintended) consequence that is our primary concern.

That is from the Printing Industry Association, first in a letter to me, which does not provide the detailed explanation, and then in an email exchange with the Managing Editor of the Yorke Peninsula Country Times as to why, based on case law precedent that they are familiar with in their industry, they believe there are these concerns, which are raised in the Minter Ellison advice (and I want to return to that in a moment). Here is an industry stakeholder raising these specific questions.

My question to the minister is: is the minister, based on his SafeWork SA advice (and we have established the fact this morning that the minister did not believe he needed to get crown law advice in relation to this issue), saying to this chamber that the Printing Industry Association General Manager has it wrong in relation to case law precedent in his industry?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: There could be a thousand issues brought up in regard to hypotheticals. There are literally tens of thousands of agreements in this country where individuals on the workplace floor have made arrangements that suit that particular industry. It is almost impossible to be able to sit there and understand every single agreement. We do accept the fact that there is a cost to these part public holidays. We accept that there will be costs, but the honourable member is saying that often they are open to interpretation. Preliminary advice from the industrial relations inspectors is that 'it is not clear that the outcome Mr Lucas refers to is accurate'.

The reality is that there are many industrial agreements that have been negotiated in workplaces that could be from a couple of thousand to three or four employees, and they negotiate various provisions that suit their workplace. Once again I make clear that we are not saying that it will not cost industry—we have said that it will. It will cost the government $4.65 million.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: It's not costing you—it's costing the taxpayer.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It's costing the taxpayer $4.65 million. To go through every hypothetical or every example is totally inappropriate. It is all open to interpretation. You will have lawyers who say one thing and we can get lawyers who say another. At the end of the day, there will be a cost; we envisage that this cost will not be significant. We envisage that the general principle of public holidays is that if people do not work and they do not get paid for it. There are tens of thousands of industrial agreements that have been negotiated at the coalface to suit various situations in that industry, and I am sure there will be various costs that will arise.

The CHAIR: Does the Hon. Mr Lucas intend to move his amendment?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, Mr Chairman, not at this stage. That response from the minister is now stunning for what it reveals. When I raised the issues yesterday in the second reading contribution, we got back this advice from SafeWork SA—and some of us believed that it might have been based after consultation with crown law, and that is when the minister said this morning and then he recanted and said that, no, it was not, it is SafeWork SA's advice in relation to it.

Nevertheless, when you read that advice essentially it says (and I invite members to go back and read the minister's response), 'Don't you worry about that: in essence you've got it wrong, this is a scare campaign,' was the minister's overall response that was being run and 'don't worry about these sort of issues'. I raise again now, as I did in the second reading, the specific example of the printing industry. They specifically say that, based on their advice and case law precedent, all other staff in their industry, whether they usually work these hours or not, will be entitled to paid time off in lieu for these additional public holidays.

So, we are raising here a specific industry that is not hypothetical. This is a real-world example of someone who is having this conversation with their editors and members of the association and their local members and saying, 'Look, the government, the minister and the Premier are all saying this is only about those people who work and they will get paid a penalty rate and whatever else it is. Do not believe this notion that, for people who are not working or usually working, there is going to be these additional costs.'

That was the sort of advice that we were being given and being led to believe in the debates publicly and in the sort of responses that we were getting from the minister to the first round of questions; but now, this specific example of the printing industry says, 'We believe what is being said to us is wrong. We believe that people who do not normally work and are not working on these particular hours will have to be given paid time off in lieu for these additional public holidays.'

He gives this specific example in the printing industry, based on the precedents that they have had established, and what is the response we now get from the minister? 'We have had another discussion about that and it is not entirely clear that the claims being made by the Hon. Mr Lucas are accurate.' That is the response we are now getting from the minister. 'It is not entirely clear that the claims being made by the member are accurate.' That is the best we are getting from the minister.

Previously, it was, 'No, we have handled these public holidays for years and years. It will just be done in the normal way,' in relation to public holidays. Now, after we persist with questioning the minister, the best we get is, 'It is not entirely clear that the claims being made are correct.' Then he goes on to say, 'These things will have to be established by courts or tribunals,' or whatever else it might happen to be, ultimately, as to whether or not there is going to be an additional cost.

That is the situation this debate has descended to in terms of the quality of the government's defence. They try to dismiss it as hypotheticals. These are not hypotheticals: these are decisions we are being asked to make, which will impact on the ability of small businesses to run themselves and the costs that are going to be imposed upon them as they run themselves, as a result of this legislation.

The minister says, 'There is going to be an additional cost for us the government.' As I said by way of interjection, you the government are not paying for it. It is the taxpayers and the working families of South Australia who have got to put their hands in their pockets for another $4.65 million every year to pay for this particular deal with the shoppies union. So, do not tell us that, 'We the government are incurring these additional costs.' The taxpayers of South Australia and the working families of South Australia are already $400 million in deficit. They are being asked to pay another $4.65 million in relation to this issue.

So the minister then says, 'This is all hypothetical.' This is not hypothetical. These businesses potentially are going to be incurring these costs. We are being led to believe publicly and then earlier today, 'Don't worry about it. We have had years of experience in managing these public holidays and they will be interpreted in the normal way,' when the first questions were being raised about whether it is possible that, because of enterprise bargaining, national employment standards and the modern awards, we might actually have a mess which is developing as a result of this particular deal, which will mean that small businesses will have to pay for some employees who do not usually work on those hours for these new part-time public holidays, who do not actually work for those part-time public holidays, but, because of this deal, the small business owner will actually have to pay additional costs to those employees.

They are not working. They do not normally work, but they are going to have to be given time off in lieu as a result of this particular deal. Ain't that a great deal? The government and the minister never thought about it. It is only as a result of the business coalition taking the legal advice from Minters and raising the issues in the latter weeks of the debate on this particular issue, and then industries like the Printing Industry Association directly lobbying members of parliament and the Assembly and here that, all of a sudden—

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Lucas, do you have a question to the minister?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I don't, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: Right, I'll have to sit you down soon.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, you don't sit me down, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: Yes, I can.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You can't sit me down, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: Under standing order 367, I think I can.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chair, I am entitled to put a point of view on this issue.

The CHAIR: You are getting repetitive.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not being repetitive.

The CHAIR: Yes you are.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: You have said it all before.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I haven't said it all before.

The CHAIR: If you don't get on—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If you want to try to gag debate do so, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: I could gag debate.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If you want to gag debate on—

The CHAIR: Just get on with it and ask the minister a question.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I don't have to ask the minister a question.

The CHAIR: You are pandering to the audience.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, the standing orders don't require me to ask a question. I can make a point, I can ask questions, I can move amendments.

The CHAIR: You make the same point over and over again.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If you want to gag me, you try to gag me.

The CHAIR: I'll gag you.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well you go ahead; it's your prerogative. The point we are making is that we have been misled in relation to this particular issue. It is not a hypothetical issue. Following on from the Printing Industries Association's—

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: Mr Chairman, under standing order No. 371, I move:

That the question be now put.

The CHAIR: You might want to call a point of order, or make the move, after the member ceases to speak.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman—

The CHAIR: That's all right; he has indicated what he wants to do.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The naivety and inexperience of new members is delicious to behold. He is very keen to put himself up into the limelight but doesn't understand what he is doing.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, if we get to a position where a member prevents another member from moving an amendment, then we are on very sticky and thorny ground.

The CHAIR: You have had plenty of opportunities to move your amendment. I have asked you on three occasions to move your amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, I have questions and points that I want to raise.

The CHAIR: You can still move your amendment and then people have the opportunity to ask you questions about your amendment. If you don't move your amendment and the government does move that clause 1 is put, then I will have to put the question. I am just warning you. Get on with it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am warning you and the government—

The CHAIR: It is no good warning the Chairman.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —that if you move down that path—

The CHAIR: The Chair will not take warnings from you, Hon. Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —it would be the first time ever that that would have been done, where a member would have been prevented from moving a particular amendment, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: No, never.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The first time ever that that would have been the case. For example, in relation to the WorkCover debate, we endured eight hour speeches as part of that debate and willingly allowed members to put their point of view. Certainly we have not done that, and do not intend to do that—

The CHAIR: They didn't speak for eight hours in the committee stage of the WorkCover bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think, if you add up the committee stage, it was much longer than the two hours that—

The CHAIR: No; they didn't speak any longer than you have spoken on some of this. They certainly weren't as repetitive as you.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, I think you should go back and check the record because you will find you are wrong. You can be wrong if you wish—

The CHAIR: You checked the record yesterday when you were challenged and you found you were wrong. I don't know whether I was—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Not yesterday, Mr Chairman—

The CHAIR: The day before?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That was today. You have lost track of time.

The CHAIR: I have.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly. You are 24 hours out of sync, but that is your problem not mine.

The CHAIR: You are your problem.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I said, in relation to this particular issue that the Printing Industries Association raised, it crosses over the advice from Minter Ellison. I particularly put the point to the minister that under National Employment Standard 89—Employee not taken to be on paid annual leave at certain times, it says:

If the period during which an employee takes paid annual leave includes a day or part-day that is a public holiday in the place where the employee is based for work purposes, the employee is taken not to be on paid annual leave on that public holiday.

The advice goes on—I will not repeat it, as I put it in the second reading—and lists the four public holidays. This is for someone who had taken leave from the day before Christmas through to 31 December inclusive. So there will be four public holidays or part-public holidays during that particular period. It then highlights that the explanatory memorandum of the Fair Work Bill 2008 provides, under clause 89, that an employee will not be taken to be on paid annual leave during a day or part day that is a public holiday which falls during the period of their absence from work on annual leave. Then it concludes:

Accordingly, it is possible that claims for additional payment or recrediting of annual leave may be made by any employee who has been required to take annual leave over the Christmas shut down period regardless of when the employee usually works ordinary hours.

My question to the minister again is: is it the minister's advice that that particular claim by Minter Ellison is wrong and that employees in that circumstance will not have to make additional payments or re-credit annual leave in the circumstances that I outlined in the second reading and briefly again this evening?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: My advice is that if the person would not normally work the hours between 7pm and midnight, they would not get paid. I will just make this comment—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Could you say that again? Sorry, I could not hear you.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Would not be credited with annual leave.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So you are saying that I am wrong.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Yes, that is what I am saying from the advice I have. A lot of it is open to interpretation. SafeWork SA's industrial relations inspectors are industrial relations specialists who are dual badged under both the commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 and the state Fair Work Act 1994. Between them, they have a vast experience of interpreting awards and agreements in both the public and private sectors.

Other functions include: providing advice on industrial entitlements and responsibilities; conducting complex wage and penalty rate calculations; providing assistance in resolving workplace complaints about industrial relations matters; investigating alleged contraventions of modern awards and agreements which may often lead to prosecutions; conducting targeted industrial relations educational campaigns; and compliance audits.

Inspectors are regularly called upon to interpret and evaluate situations where a worker is covered by multiple awards and/or agreements and is entitled to varying penalty rates depending on whether they are full-time, part-time or casual, or whether they are shift workers or on an annual salary. They are the experts. When you have an industrial agreement which has been negotiated in the workplace, very often you need to have an interpretation made. Obviously, Minter Ellison has given one interpretation. If the people involved ring SafeWork SA, it would give its interpretation.

We could go through this a thousand times but, at the end of the day, some of these issues will be open to interpretation and may end up in the Industrial Court or Commission to get a final decision. The government recognises that there will be a cost to industry, but we believe that the historic and substantial reform to shop trading hours will allow people to be able to reasonably refuse to work on Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve. If people choose to work, they will be paid the appropriate penalty rates for public holidays. We think it is a reasonable expense.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: Point of order, Mr Chair. Under standing order 371, I move:

That the question be now put.

The committee divided on the motion:

The CHAIR: There being nine ayes and nine noes, I therefore cast my vote with the ayes, and it passes in the affirmative.

Motion thus carried; clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In relation to clause 2, in the second reading I raised the advice in relation to employees on rostered days off and I found (without going through all the section of the advice again) that it said:

With the definition of an RDO as being a 24-hour period there is a risk that full-time employees who have an RDO rostered on 24 December or 31 December and who do not normally work after 5pm will receive both the RDO as a paid day off in addition to an extra day's pay, an alternative day off or a day of annual leave.

Again, without repeating the explanation I gave in the second reading, that was based on an interpretation of the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 and the Registered and Licensed Clubs Award 2010. Is the minister indicating that his advice is that that advice from Minter Ellison is wrong?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I have already answered that question. We are on clause 2, commencement date, and I do not believe that this question has any relevance to that clause.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will raise the questions again in relation to the clauses later on; I am quite happy to do that. In relation to the commencement date, can the minister indicate, should the government succeed in breaking all conventions and precedents, gagging debate and jamming the bill through either tonight or tomorrow, what is the government's intention in terms of the date of proclamation and receiving assent for the bill?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: As soon as possible, and we hope to have it gazetted by Thursday week. So, as soon as possible.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thursday week is the day before Easter. The reason this bill had to go through, so we were advised, was because the minister was not going to issue proclamations for this coming Easter. Given the minister has just said that this bill will not be proclaimed until the day before Easter, or holy Thursday, is the indicating that there will not be trading this Easter, on Easter Sunday or Easter Monday?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: There are a number of steps that are required before we can actually have it—it has to go down to the lower house. It also has to be assented by the Governor and then be gazetted. Once it passes both houses of parliament we know it will become law, so we can then advise retailers that the law that will be gazetted on Thursday week will allow them to trade over the Easter weekend.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The legal position will be that the law will not be in effect. Is the minister indicating that he is intending to advise retailers prior to proclamation and royal assent—and Executive Council having considered it tomorrow week, Easter Thursday? Is the minister indicating that he is going to go out prior to then and advise CBD retailers what the legal position is, and that is that they can go ahead and open?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The reality is that, if this bill is passed tonight, we will be able to hopefully streamline the process and get it proclaimed sooner, but—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Sooner than what?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Just sooner. This is your intention. This is your aim. You are trying to frustrate the ability of the Adelaide CBD retailers—

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Point of order, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Dawkins has a point of order.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: The honourable minister has been here far long enough to know—and he was reminded earlier in the day—that he should address you and not other members in this chamber, and he constantly does it.

The CHAIR: The honourable minister should address his remarks through the Chair.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The intention of the Hon. Mr Lucas is to frustrate Easter shopping. That is his intention. The reality is, if this bill passes this house, goes down to the lower house and is passed through both houses, it will be up to the people of the Adelaide CBD whether they shop on that day or whether they open.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: No, it won't; it's up to the law.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: They will know that it will become law next Thursday, so they will make the appropriate arrangements.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This clause is a simple one, I would have thought: 'This Act will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation.' I asked the minister when he was going to actually have this proclaimed. His first advice was next Thursday, Easter Thursday, and there are things that have to be done. We highlighted this during the second reading debate and that is the point that I made in relation to this. This debate was a farce. The minister had the power to proclaim, under the existing act, Easter trading. He had the numbers in this chamber either this week or next week to get the bill through, and it was going to be a rush anyway. So, the minister confirms everything that we said in the second reading debate, that is, you cannot do this until Easter Thursday, or maybe even a bit before that if you want to.

However, the retailers in the CBD need to know well prior to that. They have been saying they needed to know two weeks ago. Then they said last week in the City Messenger, 'We have to know no later than last Friday, because we have to do rosters, we have to get people who are prepared to volunteer to work, we have to work out our advertising. We have to do everything in relation to Easter Sunday and Easter Monday trading.' You cannot just make a decision next Wednesday or next Thursday in terms of, 'Okay, this is what we're going to do in relation to Easter Sunday and Easter Monday trading.'

For goodness sake, you would hope that the minister would actually understand even that, Mr Chairman. You would hope that he would understand even that, that is if they have the numbers. As I said, they had the power under the existing act to proclaim, but if they are not going to do that and the intention is, as I said, to gag debate, prevent members from moving amendments, stop members from speaking at the second reading, do everything they can to try to get this deal with the shoppies union through tonight or tomorrow, so be it. In the end, if you have the numbers in this chamber, you can do whatever you wish. I am the first to acknowledge that. All I have warned is that what comes around goes around in relation to these issues.

This is a simple issue, clause 2. The first answer is next Thursday and then when he realises the mess he has got himself into, he comes back and says, 'It could be sooner.' Well, when? Exactly when is he talking about now? If it is not going to be next Thursday, when does he believe he will make the decision? Does he still genuinely believe the nonsense he spouted two or three minutes ago that traders can just go ahead and make decisions and make rostering arrangements, etc. on the punt that he the minister and the government will put this through next Thursday, Easter Thursday—that is, operate on the basis of a law that has not been proclaimed and has not gone through the processes it has to go through before it actually becomes the law of the state?

Can he advise the chamber what he is now saying? If it is not next Thursday, when is it that he is going to actually get all of these processes done which have to be done—the Assembly, Executive Council, proclamation, Royal assent (which involves the Governor), Executive Council obviously, which involves some members of cabinet as well as the minister. When will all that be done and it be proclaimed?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I must say the Hon. Mr Lucas speaks a lot of nonsense, to be honest. If he honestly believes and tells this chamber that the people who want to open over Easter weekend cannot realise the fact that this legislation has passed through both houses of parliament and that it will become law by Easter, I must say he is not living in the real world. This is what is happening. They are on notice, they understand the debate and they understand also that the opposition will try to filibuster on this to make it very difficult for them to trade over the weekend.

I also advise that if we get this through both houses of parliament by tonight or tomorrow morning, we will seek to have the Governor give us assent, and we will seek to have an early Gazette. We will do it as soon as possible. I cannot give whether it is going to be Monday morning, Tuesday morning, but I will tell you this, they are waiting for it; they are waiting for this bill to be passed. They are doing their rostering, so don't you worry about that. They are looking after themselves. They definitely know you are not looking after them. That is it.

The CHAIR: The clause is about proclamation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly, and I am going to address that.

The CHAIR: I think the minister has answered your question.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You might think that. I am going to address it.

The CHAIR: I intend to put the clause very shortly.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You could get someone else to move the question. You could if you liked, Mr Chairman. You did last time.

The CHAIR: Did I really?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, you did.

The CHAIR: Oh, indeed; I am very clever. How did I do that?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Would you like to get Mr Kandelaars back again?

The CHAIR: You go and get him if you like.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, would you like to?

The CHAIR: Well, you go and get him.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I do not want him; he is your man.

The CHAIR: No, I do not want him; you go and get him.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: You should not be debating the Chair; get on with it, or I will sit you down.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Would you like to? I will give you time.

The CHAIR: He will come in when he is ready.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Make a telephone call? Whistle?

The CHAIR: Come on, get on with it. You are wasting time. Stop pandering to the audience. They are not impressed; I can see that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, my questions are in relation to this particular clause, because they relate to when the day is going to be that this is going to be fixed by proclamation. The minister is now saying that he is going to do this early next week sometime, prior to next Thursday. Does he believe that that is sufficient time for traders in the CBD to be able to make the decisions that they need to in relation to Easter Sunday and Easter Monday? Can he also rule out absolutely that he will not use the proclamation provisions under the existing act for Easter Sunday and Easter Monday trading this year?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: You never rule out anything. I am not going to, for the satisfaction of the Hon. Mr Lucas, give any guarantees. What I can say is that there are a lot of people in the CBD tourist precinct who are looking for this legislation to get through both houses of parliament. They are obviously making the appropriate arrangements so that they can shop over the Easter weekend. The only thing that stands in the way of these people making a lot of money over the weekend, through shopping or not, is the Hon. Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The hypocrisy of the minister on this issue has just been revealed so starkly. He is now leaving open the option of using the existing provisions of the act to proclaim—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: I didn't say that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, you did.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, he did, Mr Chairman. Don't squeal now; you are squealing like a stuck pig.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: You're the squealer.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister is squealing like a stuck pig at the moment. He has just been caught. When I asked him to rule out the use of the proclamation provisions under the existing act it was something which all along during this debate, he has said, 'We won't use this. We won't use this. We won't use this.' We said all along, 'Well, why don't you? You've got the numbers either this week or next week to get the bill through. Why don't you actually use the provisions?' He said, 'No, we can't do that. We're not going to do that. We will not do that.' Now, under clause 2, a simple question: will you rule it out?—and he stands up in this chamber and says, 'No, we will not rule it out.' Of course, he is leaving—

The CHAIR: His answer was that he would not rule out anything. That is what he said.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, if you—

The CHAIR: It is no good trying to twist the minister's words around.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —want to engage in the debate, resign the chair and sit over there and join in. We would be very happy to accommodate you, Mr Chairman. The minister can make a mess himself; you do not need to try to help him.

An honourable member: He probably does.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, you probably do need to help him; that's right. My colleague corrects me and says you probably—

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —do need to correct him and help him. It is clear now that the minister is leaving open the option of using proclamations under the existing act to get himself out of the mess he has got himself into. The other point in relation to this, the comment the minister made—again, incorrectly (and that does not surprise us)—was that he said that in some way I and the Liberal Party are trying to stop trading on Easter Sunday and Easter Monday.

That statement is untrue. We support additional shopping trading. We support the liberalisation of shopping hours. We support trading in the CBD on Easter Sunday and Easter Monday; that is a proposition that we support. The only bits of the bill that we are opposing are the other bits which we will come to in the other clauses, unless you get another member of the government to gag him before I move the amendments in relation to those positions. The dog whistle must have worked because he has just waddled back into the chamber.

In relation to this issue, the statements the minister just made are wrong. They are factually wrong; they are untrue. We are quite happy to see the trading. We believe there is a way of achieving that whether this bill goes through or whether you use the existing legislation.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: These are the amendment provisions of the bill. I refer to the Minter Ellison advice in relation to employees on rostered days off. Again, without repeating all that I said in the second reading explanation, when I referred to the two awards—the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 and the Registered and Licensed Clubs Award 2010—Minter Ellison's final conclusion was:

With the definition of an RDO as being a 24-hour period, there is a risk that full-time employees who have an RDO rostered on 24 December or 31 December, and who do not normally work after 5 pm, will receive both the RDO as a paid day off in addition to an extra day's pay, alternative day off or day of annual leave.

Is it the minister's advice that that advice from Minter Ellison is wrong?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I have answered this question on a number of occasions, and I will go through it again. There are literally tens of thousands of industrial agreements throughout the country. These agreements are negotiated at the enterprise level, and they are done normally to make provisions and the like that will suit the workplace. Many of these agreements are open for interpretation, and this is why the SafeWork SA's industrial branch has literally thousands and thousands of calls a year to interpret the awards. For me to sit here and give any sort of ironclad guarantee of an issue which is probably repeated in many different workplaces is just not feasible. I do not see any point in going on. You will get the same answer. My advice to the particular employers that you are getting advice for is to ring up SafeWork and they will get a good and proper interpretation of their awards.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The advice you gave us was from SafeWork SA. You chose not to go and get legal advice in relation to this. The SafeWork SA advice in summary is, 'Don't worry about it. The public holiday provisions have been interpreted in this particular way for a long time and we don't see that there's a particular issue that you're talking about.' What you are saying to this chamber is that this Minter Ellison advice is wrong, because, if and when we get to the situation where this has to be tested, it is going to be the position of some of those employers to come looking for a head and to say, 'Okay, you did this deal. Why weren't these issues raised and what did the minister say when the questions were put to him?'

Now, if the best you are going to say is, 'This is hypothetical and I refuse to answer it', well then so be it, but the SafeWork SA advice you have given in the second reading would lead everyone to believe, 'Don't worry about it. It's not an issue, and there aren't going to be additional costs that will be incurred.'

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The Minter Ellison advice is not raising any question about the legal validity of the bill. It is raising potential cost issues, and these are potential cost issues which exist already within the context of how awards and agreements deal with full public holidays. The essence of the advice is the suggestion that there may be awards or agreements which contain provisions where the creation of a part-day public holiday will have particular impacts in relation to penalty rates or other public holiday entitlements.

As I have stated earlier, the fundamental industrial principles remain the same whether we are talking about a part public holiday or a full public holiday. Importantly, in this context employers and employees will always retain the option of seeking to vary agreements, and parties to awards will always have the option to vary awards, including provisions dealing with public holidays.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: At least, I guess, we goaded the minister into giving the latest bit of advice he got from SafeWork SA on it. It still does not answer the question, and the record will just need to stand as it is. I do not intend to repeat the questions and breach the standing orders by being repetitive. I have put the question. The minister has given marginally more expansive advice from SafeWork SA, but nevertheless it still says nothing and basically says, 'Look, it's going to be determined ultimately by the tribunals and the courts in relation to these issues.'

The minister's position and the government's position is, 'Stuff the small business sector. Stuff the people out there in the real world. Taxpayers are going to pay our increased costs of $4.65 million. We'll just jack up the taxes and take another $4.65 million out. The small businesses in South Australia are going to have to go and fight this in the tribunals and the courts and, if they lose, they'll just have to find the costs to increase it.' It is not the minister's worry; it is not the shoppies union's worry because they are only worried about their members. Stuff the small businesses in South Australia and the people who are trying to make a buck, run a business, employ people, grow jobs and all those sorts of things. That is the government's position.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Are we running a deficit?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, the Hon. Mr Stephens says, 'Are we running a deficit?' Yes, about $400 million worth of deficits every year. But I will not be diverted, Mr Chairman. The next question relates to employees on annualised salary arrangements advice from Minter Ellison. Again, without repeating the example I gave in the second reading (it did refer to the Hospitality Industry General Award), I referred to clause 27.5, which I will not repeat. Minter's advice and conclusion was:

In this situation, an eligible employee who was rostered until, say, 6pm—

and that was on the basis of a 5 o'clock start, so it would now be 8pm—

on a part-day public holiday would receive the entitlement to a whole day off in lieu or a full day of annual leave, usually 7.6 hours. It is not necessary for an employee to work the entire public holiday or part-day public holiday to accrue this entitlement.

Is the minister saying that particular advice from Minter Ellison is wrong?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: This award has a provision which entitles a salaried worker to a day off in lieu, or an additional day of annual leave, if they are required to work on a public holiday. In this industry, it would not be unusual for a salaried worker to start a shift on a Sunday afternoon and work beyond midnight into a Monday public holiday or, as another example, a worker who starts a shift on 25 January and works into the early hours of Australia Day. It seems that the issue with this award is not restricted to part-day public holidays, and it highlights an issue that currently exists within the interpretation of this award.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think that employers and others will interpret the minister's position in relation to that as they have with his other answers. The next issue Minter Ellison raised by way of a question was employees rostered on shifts commencing late at night. The two awards it refers to there (again, I will not repeat them) were the Clerks Private Sector Award 2010, which obviously would have relatively wide coverage, and the Vehicle Manufacturing Repair Services and Retail Award 2010. This issue did appear to raise two concerns, and I will quote what Minter Ellison has said:

Firstly, other provisions will mean that employees who start shifts outside the part-day public holiday will receive penalties for all the time worked if the shift continues into a part-day public holiday.

I raise that issue, and I refer back to the earlier questions and answers I got in relation to the public sector EB arrangements in relation to police, salaried medical officers, nurses and fire officers. The minister's answers there were specific, and that is that this problem did not relate to those particular agreements. That is, employees who started the shift (and I gave the example of 2 o'clock) outside the part-day public holiday would receive penalties for all the time worked if the shift continued into the part-time public holiday. So, I gave an example of a 2 o'clock to 10 o'clock shift, and the minister's answer was, 'In relation to police, fire officers, nurses and salaried medical officers, that is not the case.'

In relation to the private sector, what Minter Ellison is saying is that that is the case. That is, there are some awards (and two examples are given, the vehicle manufacturing one and the clerks' award) where you do have these provisions where people who have started a shift working in the non-public holiday bit of Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve but it extends into, say, 10 o'clock at night will have to be paid, I assume, the 250 per cent penalty rate for the whole of the seven or eight hours. That is terrific if you happen to be working the ordinary hours and then going through to 10 o'clock. You will be paid, possibly, the 250 per cent rate even for the time that has been worked in ordinary hours from 2 o'clock. But on the other hand, Minter Ellison's advice also says:

As stated above, in some cases, employees who work on public holidays usually receive penalty rates for doing so. However, the particular timing of the part-time public holidays will lead to some employees in some industries not receiving penalties for those hours, depending on the start time of their shift.

Minter Ellison is saying that there are some other examples in relation to where the shift starts during the part-time public holiday and moves into another day, where the employee might not get the penalty rate, even for the bit that was in the part-time public holiday. Does the minister have advice in relation to Minter Ellison's concerns here? In particular, I guess I am raising the issue of where a business will have to pay an employee who started work at 2 o'clock the penalty rate from 2 o'clock right through to the end of their shift at 10 o'clock.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It has been alleged that employees could lose out under the clerks award and the vehicle awards. They both have similar provisions regarding shifts commencing after 10.45pm or 11pm respectively but before midnight on a Sunday or public holiday. When this occurs, the worker gets the relevant rate for the next day and not the Sunday or public holiday rate.

This type of straddling provision is common in many awards and agreements. For these two awards, the reverse also applies in that, if you start a shift late at night prior to a Sunday or public holiday, you get paid the whole shift at the Sunday or public holiday rate. So this provision works both ways and, for most shift workers, it will balance out during the course of the year.

These late night provisions can only apply to the hours of the day that will be regarded as part-day public holidays on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, so their application will be no different to all other public holidays. It is also worth noting that a worker who currently starts late at night on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve will have the majority of their shift paid at the Christmas Day and New Year's Day public holiday rate, anyway, so the part-day public holidays should have no impact whatsoever.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think the minister has just confirmed the Minter Ellison advice, that is, in relation to some awards in the private sector, and maybe in other parts of the public sector that I have not raised questions about, there will be provisions where workers who are working from 2 o'clock on Christmas Eve will be paid—and the small business will have to pay—the penalty rate for the whole of that shift and then, as he said, there are some losers, if I can put it that way, in relation to some of the award provisions that have been highlighted—the clerks and the vehicle awards that I referred to—where some of the employees in certain circumstances will lose as well.

So, at least I guess there is one aspect of the Minter Ellison advice that the minister has agreed with. It is small comfort, I guess, for the small businesses who potentially have EB award arrangements where they will be confronted with additional costs as a result of this deal that has been done between the government and the shoppies union.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My original amendments, as drafted by parliamentary counsel (and I always bow to parliamentary counsel's great wisdom on these things) were to delete the heading and then delete the clause. The brutal reality is that they can be treated together. I have not moved them, but I will address some issues in relation to them. In relation to that, it was going to be the second in a package of amendments that would address the major issue of the bill, at least from our viewpoint.

As I said, and I do not intend to repeat all of the argument from the second reading, the Liberal Party's position, contrary to what the minister has been saying, is that we do support the liberalising of trading hours (generally) and we support the liberalising of trading hours in the CBD as defined by the terraces and the Torrens in the government's bill. So, contrary to what the minister has said, we are not seeking to delay that: we support the opening up of trading.

The bit that we do oppose, as we outlined in the second reading, and have done so publicly, is the linking of that worthwhile decision with the objectionable parts of the bill, which is to actually say, 'We are now going to institute this part of the bill which will cost the taxpayers of South Australia $4.65 million per year', or almost $20 million over the forward estimates period, at a time when (frankly) the state cannot afford it.

We are $300 million to $400 million in deficit every year, we have a debt of $8 billion, heading towards $11 billion, and this minister, this Premier and this government simply say, 'Well, what the heck, if you're going down the tube at $300 million or $400 million a year, what's another $4.65 million?' As the minister was saying earlier, 'Well, it's only $5 million. It's the government's money', which we picked him up on and said it was the taxpayers' money.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: He would have a different view if it was coming out of his own pocket.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly; if it was coming out of his own pocket then he would have a different view. That is essentially the government's position in relation to the linking of these two particular issues: 'What the heck, going down the tube at $400 million a year, debt of $8 billion, up to $11 billion, what's another $4 million or $5 million a year between friends? And by the way, we'll just ratchet up the taxes.' The land tax bills will go up and everything else in relation to collecting another $5 million or so.

On the other hand, as we have just established through the earlier stages of this committee, who gives a continental about the costs on small business in South Australia? We already have the lowest economic growth in the nation, the lowest employment growth in the nation and retail sales are the worst in the nation. Who gives a stuff about small business and the state economy, as long as we can do the deal with the shoppies union. The shoppies want us to do the deal. We do not give a stuff about the budget. We could not give a continental about small business and the state economy. If small business incur additional costs then so be it, that is their problem, it has nothing to do with us.

Mr Acting Chairman, welcome to the chair. At least you will not be able to move those disgraceful motions that the former chair encouraged you to move earlier—unprecedented, Mr Acting Chair. You go down in Legislative Council infamy and you have only been here for less than a year. So, Mr Acting Chairman, that is the position that the Liberal Party is opposed to. We have argued the case publicly, we have argued the case in the chamber, and we accept the fact that on the current indications the numbers will not be there in relation to that particular issue.

From my viewpoint, and the Liberal Party's viewpoint, I think the committee stages have been critical in trying to get information in relation to the costs, which the minister would not provide, and information in relation to the legal advice, which the minister would not provide and still has not provided in a number of areas. We see the importance of the committee in getting as many facts on the table as we can on behalf of the stakeholders who are concerned about this particular bill, but we are not going to use the committee stages to re-run the total debate.

I have summarised the Liberal Party's position. We think it is a foolish move and we oppose it strongly. Ultimately, if the government has support from enough Independent and minor party members then so be it; the responsibility will rest on the government and those members when small business raise concerns along the lines they have indicated they will if the bill is implemented. That is a succinct summary of the Liberal Party's trenchant, strident, passionate opposition to this particular provision. I oppose the clause.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The honourable member seeks to delete changes to the definition of public holiday in the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 in the bill and the definition of part public holidays. Should this clause be negatived, the current definition of public holidays will not change. This will remove references to part-day public holidays and will mean that Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve will not have the same status as other public holidays for statutory purposes.

In effect, deleting this clause would mean that Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve will not be recognised as public holidays for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009, which in turn means that employees will be denied their rights under the commonwealth national employment standards to reasonably refuse shifts on part public holidays or receive appropriate public holiday rates of pay for working at these special times of the year.

Low-paid workers have been denied the choice about whether or not they work during these traditional festive periods, and if they do work they have the opportunity to earn additional wages when the rest of the community is celebrating with their friends and families. This bill as it currently stands acknowledges the fact that, while most of us are at home or out enjoying ourselves at the special times of Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, there are others who are serving us and looking after us, for example, nurses, police and hospitality workers. We support the clause.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: There was one remaining issue that I meant to put in my succinct summary. If the government's position was, as they have maintained all along, that they believe in the hardworking people who work on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, they have had 10 years in which they could have done it for the public sector workers.

If this was truly an issue of great concern to this Labor government, they had 10 years when they could have done it, particularly at times when we had a much healthier budget position than we do at the moment. The reality is that that is not the reason for this particular change. It is because the shoppies union have told them to do it and they are using this particular reason now, after 10 years, to seek to justify the decision. If it was really the case they could have done much sooner.

The committee divided on the clause:

Majority of 1 for the ayes.

Clause thus passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The opposition, as always, does not seek to unduly delay any debate including the committee stage of this, so the remaining amendments are consequential. I do not propose to move them or to extend the debate in relation to those particular amendments. But in addressing clause 5, as we are, I indicate that I had originally proposed to move to report progress on clause 1 this morning. Your advice, Mr Chairman, which I always give great regard and respect—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Due consideration.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My colleague suggests I should say 'due regard' and an appropriate level of respect. Your advice, Mr Chairman, was not to move to report progress on clause 1 but to move to report progress before the first of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendments which is clause 6. I thought I would forewarn about this because, as soon as I move to report progress, no-one else can debate it. I am alerting people. Being the very considerate members of the opposition and team players that we are, we are alerting members.

My understanding of the Liberal Party's position is, as I said, that we do not meet as a joint party room until next Monday. To consider the amendments from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, we would need to consider them in the joint party room on Monday, but my understanding is that is probably not going to be supported.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Point of order, Mr Chairman: it is very difficult to hear the debate with all the cross noise. Could we focus on the debate?

The CHAIR: Certainly.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, you and the minister were talking too loudly and I could not hear myself think. My understanding is that there will probably not be support for that, and in the end the Liberal Party will just have to work out as best we can a position on the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendments. By reporting progress it will at least allow me to consult with my upper house colleagues first thing in the morning and one or two of my lower house colleagues in relation to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendments.

Given the time, we have still only had response from three stakeholders out of the very many to whom we have sent the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendments. Clearly, if we have to vote on this even tomorrow we will not be in a position to give proper consideration, but again, if the government has the numbers, the government has the numbers and there is nothing much we can do about that, but I apologise potentially in advance to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire in relation to that particular position.

I indicate that I do not intend to proceed with my amendment on clause 5 because it is consequential. I also advise the committee that I do not intend to proceed with the remaining amendments as they, too, are consequential on the last vote we have just taken, and we accept that as definitive in terms of the committee's position on it, but I propose, after clause 5 passes, to move to report progress.

Clause passed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

That progress be reported.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire's first amendment is actually to insert new clause 6A.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, I do not think there is any debate when a member moves to report progress, with the greatest respect.

The CHAIR: No, there is not.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: So, I have moved to report progress.

The committee divided on the motion:

Majority of 1 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.