STATUTES AMENDMENT (SHOP TRADING AND HOLIDAYS) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 28 March 2012.)

Clause 6.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In relation to the government amendment, the only amendment that the government intends to move, I want to clarify which clause it involves and why this particular clause is not being amended. Mr Chairman, you were just about to put clause 6. Isn't the minister actually moving an amendment to clause 6?

The CHAIR: No; the minister's amendment is to insert new clause 6A.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister? I thought that was Mr Brokenshire.

The CHAIR: No.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: I will be moving that amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am very happy for you to rush the clause through without the government moving its amendment.

The CHAIR: We nearly did that. If you had not stopped us we would have done that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly; that's what I am saying. If I am not here to assist you in the chair heaven knows what would happen in the committee.

The CHAIR: I haven't got an amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What, the government has not filed an amendment? This is extraordinary. The Chair is saying that the government has not filed an amendment for what is supposedly the key deal being done. The Chair has just said—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: Well, there is—

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Are you saying that the Chair is wrong?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I am saying that we should deal with the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, we have the minister in disagreement with the Chair. The Chair says that there is no amendment and the minister says that there is. Can you actually get your act together? Is it possible to get your act together?

The CHAIR: It was not in front of me, it was over here. It has obviously been filed, it just has not been given to the Chair.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is not my fault, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIR: It is not mine either.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: With the greatest of respect, if the committee was not here assisting you, that particular clause would have gone through without you or the minister being aware of it and this whole wonderful deal would have unravelled.

The CHAIR: If you had not been asleep, it would have gone through.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If we are talking about who is asleep at the wheel this morning, I think that particular descriptor can go to the minister in charge of the bill.

The CHAIR: Just get on with it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, it is not my amendment, Mr Chairman. I was just asking whether the minister was actually going to move an amendment. I am waiting for the minister to actually get off his backside and do something.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I move:

Page 3, line 19 [clause 6, inserted section 3B]—Delete '5pm' and substitute '7pm'

This amendment reflects the arrangements made between the government and the Hon. Mr Darley. As you know, the original time for the part-day public holiday was from 5pm until midnight. As a result of our negotiations with Mr Darley, we have now changed that to 7pm until midnight, giving the government quite a significant amount of savings for taxpayers and also allowing us to accommodate those working in the non-government sector of disability and community services. So, we seek endorsement of this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party's position is that we opposed the original deal, which was from 5pm, and we oppose the compromise deal, if one wants to use that particular phrase to describe the amendment that we have before us. The Liberal Party's position, as we outlined in the second reading, is equally applicable to either the 5pm start or the 7pm start of this part-day public holiday.

As the minister indicated last night, the total cost of the deal ($4.65 million), while still substantial for taxpayers, is a reduction of some $350,000 on the original $5 million estimate. However, as the Liberal Party has said publicly, the deal was a bad deal in the first place, and it is made no better, no more palatable to taxpayers, small-business operators or all those who have opposed the original part-day public holiday, and it is no different in relation to this changed start time (from 5pm to 7pm) for the part-day public holiday.

As an indication of that, and certainly from our viewpoint, we do not intend to repeat all the arguments we used against the 5pm start of the holiday; suffice to say, we apply all those arguments to the start of the public holiday being at 7pm. We oppose this amendment and will vote against it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting this amendment. We were happy to support the 5pm start, but we are also happy to support the 7pm start.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: We opposed this last night, and we will oppose this again today.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 6A.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 3, after line 22—Insert:

6A—Insertion of section 3C

Before section 4 insert:

3C—Adelaide Cup Day.

(1) The second Monday in May will be a public holiday and a bank holiday.

(2) Section 5 does not apply to Adelaide Cup Day.

Based on some discussions this morning, I have made a further slight amendment to which I alert honourable members. I have given the Chair and the Clerk a slightly amended version, with the removal of the words 'Carers and', so the amendment now reads 'Adelaide Cup Day', with the exclusion of 'Carers and'; I am happy to explain the reason for this.

First of all, just to speak generally to the amendment, Family First is moving this amendment because there has been a lot of discussion and argy-bargy on the best time to hold the Adelaide Cup public holiday long weekend. Whilst, initially, I understand there was an agreement between the South Australian Jockey Club, Thoroughbred Racing SA and the government to move the Adelaide Cup long weekend—which was the third long weekend in May—to March, that was partly to do with two things: firstly, the weather and the rain around the track in May at times (there were two very wet Mays) and, secondly, there was a situation where we had the Magic Millions.

That has now changed, and it is no longer beneficial for the Adelaide Cup Day to be moved. There is an argument that, because there are so many other activities happening in what is commonly known as 'mad March', when there is just a logjam of events, that it is actually working against the best economic interests of the state of capitalising on the opportunities for another long weekend. I reinforce that this is not an extra public holiday but shifts it back to May.

We had further discussions and deliberations, and Family First strongly supports, as I am sure do my other colleagues in the chamber, the government's focus on volunteers on the Queen's Birthday long weekend in June, because that focus on volunteers is important. Volunteers are vital to South Australia, as are carers and, in particular, mothers, who I believe are the ultimate carers.

We were moving an original amendment to shift Adelaide Cup Day back to May (not the third weekend for a long weekend but the second weekend for a long weekend) which would also coincide with Mother's Day. Effectively, what would then happen is that you would have a public holiday in May, making the long weekend the weekend of Mother's Day, which we believe would be particularly good for the recognition and support of mothers. We believe also that carers need a special day.

Having had discussions with some members of the crossbench and the opposition, I have had indications that there would be support for this from some members but not with respect to having the tagging in the front, of 'Carers and Adelaide Cup Day', in other words, simply to have 'Adelaide Cup Day'. We deliberated on that, and we believe that it would still be good and important and, if this is changed. we would encourage the government to sit down with the sectors and members of parliament in this and the other house to discuss how we could capitalise on celebrating carers on that long weekend as well, just as we do on the June long weekend for those who volunteer.

We also believe that it would be economically beneficial to the state because, in early May, it is the last decent weather; it is just before we get into the serious part of winter. It gives families and the community an opportunity to get out, recreate and enjoy. Particularly with Mother's Day, it would give them the opportunity to possibly consider a little trip away for special recognition and rest for the mothers in this state during that time, so that is the reason why we have pushed this suggestion. We believe that it has merit, and I would be keen to get support from colleagues in this chamber.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I indicated on Tuesday and yesterday, the difficulty the Liberal Party finds itself in, given that the government and its supporters have gagged various stages of this debate and are now forcing a vote on the bill and its amendments today, is that it precludes the Liberal party room from actually considering a number of the amendments that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire is moving. I do want to indicate at the outset of this discussion (and some of the other amendments) that that is the dilemma the Liberal Party finds itself in.

It is no criticism of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire; he outlined the process he had to go through late on Monday afternoon for these amendments. We have still only received feedback from three of the stakeholders in the 48 hours since we circulated the amendments on Monday evening. Given the time that we have been spending in the chamber on this and other issues, I have not had the opportunity to be able to chase up the other stakeholders who have not yet responded to the proposed amendments. That is the dilemma the Liberal Party finds itself in.

However, in relation to this one, the Liberal Party has already established a position which it indicated publicly early to mid last year. Our party room separately had considered this issue of the rightful location in terms of timing of the public holiday related to the Adelaide Cup. We are now on the record as having supported the move back to May of the Adelaide Cup and the Adelaide Cup public holiday.

The dilemma that confronted us was that we have never considered the issue, which was the original drafting of the amendment, of designating either this public holiday or, indeed, any other one as a carers public holiday. We were not in a position, on the basis of a previously-established policy position, to support a carer's public holiday, or the renaming of the public holiday as 'Carers and Adelaide Cup Day'.

I do not prejudge the view that my party room might adopt at some stage in the future on that issue. There may well be people who are quite supportive. There may well be people who do not support the changing of the title. Whether or not it is in the title, the notion that if the government of the day wished to celebrate the contribution of carers in any way on this particular day or, indeed, at any other time, there would certainly be no opposition, I am sure, from the Liberal Party.

The principle behind the original drafting of the amendment from the Hon. Mr Brokenshire I am sure can be translated into action, if any government so chooses, with or without the formal designation in the Holidays Act. From that viewpoint, whilst we were not in a position to support the original drafting of the amendment, this drafting is broadly consistent with the publicly-announced policy of the Liberal Party since the 2010 election. For those reasons, we are prepared to support the amendment as amended.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I do not think this bill is the appropriate place to discuss or even move on the Adelaide Cup Day. The member would be aware that we are currently doing a review into the Holidays Act, and the Adelaide Cup Day will be a part of that discussion.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: We are at the moment open for public consultation. It was closed, but I extended it to allow more organisations to give their views on this day. Probably the most appropriate forum to talk about the Adelaide Cup Day is when we debate the Holidays Act. With regard to the Adelaide Cup, a number of years ago the racing industry approached the government and put a position that, because of the weather in May and dwindling crowds, they thought it would be more appropriate to go into March. The government obliged and the Adelaide Cup Day became a part of the March festivities. What has happened since then is that a number of festivals have used the Adelaide Cup Day for their festivals.

WOMAD now is on Adelaide Cup Day, and there were 20,000 people at WOMAD. There was also the Future Music Festival, which had many thousands of people. If you talk about economic benefit to the state, if we move it back to May it could have a significant impact on the economic benefit that the Adelaide Cup Day now brings on the second Monday in March. So, I do ask the chamber to oppose this amendment and we are happy to have a debate under the Holidays Act when that comes to the parliament, and it will be coming to parliament in the near future.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: This is the Holidays Act.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: When we look at a total review of the Holidays Act. The Holidays Act has not been properly reviewed for over 100 years, so we are having a very extensive debate and discussion regarding the Holidays Act. We will be bringing a bill to parliament after taking into consideration the feedback from the public consultation.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have a question for the minister.

The CHAIR: Just before you do, I will just explain to those that might not have a fresh copy of your amendment that the amendment now reads that it is the Adelaide Cup Day. Instead of 'Carers and Adelaide Cup Day', it is just 'Adelaide Cup Day'. Then it says, 'The second Monday in May will be a public holiday and bank holiday.' Then part (2) of the amendment says, 'Section 5 does not apply to Adelaide Cup Day'. So, 'Carers and' has gone out of the second part as well.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: That is correct, and thank you for that explanation. I have a question for the minister. I know that we are under a tight schedule today so I will try to not hold up things. On a point of principle, there are two points that I would ask the minister to explain based on what he just said regarding my amendment. The first is that I understand that we are debating the shop trading hours at the relevant act in the holidays bill right now.

In other words, we have the legislation open before us now, so I thought that we did have a right to move an amendment. The key question that I would like an explanation from the minister on is that he has just said that it is not appropriate for any member in this house to move a further amendment under an act that is specifically for what I am moving this amendment for, because we actually have a review into public holidays at the moment, for which submissions finish tomorrow, the 31^st to be precise.

Can the minister explain, while he says, 'Let's wait, because it's a century since we've had a look at the public holidays act,' why we are not looking at these two half public holidays that this bill is all about? Why are we doing that now and not waiting for the review into the whole issue so that it could have been debated democratically in the parliament? I am pretty confused that the government does not want to support this now, but it might actually support this when it has finished its review. The government is happy to bring in two brand-new half public holidays without waiting for the review and submissions into all the aspects and issues regarding the public holidays. What is the difference?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: First of all, I did not say it was wrong for the member to move this amendment. What I did say was it is probably more sensible to have this debate on the Adelaide Cup during the total revamp of the Holidays Act; but if the member wants not to be sensible and pursue this he is quite welcome. You are doing nothing wrong by moving this. I do not believe it is sensible. I think the sensible thing would be to do it in the future holidays act. The reason we are doing the part public holidays in this bill is because this is a package. This is a package that is happening now.

Those are the very clear reasons we think it is a good idea. It is all a part of our strategic thinking and planning for the City of Adelaide. This forms a part of that, and this is why we have decided to have these two new part public holidays in this bill. By all means debate the Adelaide Cup, even though we will be debating the Adelaide Cup probably in a month's time or so, so you can have your say then.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate the Greens will not be supporting this amendment. In our considerations, we have had a look at the history of Adelaide Cup Day. We acknowledge that it has not always been a public holiday, that there was some lobbying for it to be included as a public holiday some decades back and that that lobbying allocated that holiday to where the event had been for many decades (in fact, possibly most of its history) in May. We do acknowledge also that the debate to change it to March was not only about the weather, which seemed to be a factor, but also because of where it fitted into the racing program overall.

Those factors may have changed, and I understand there were also some considerations with March not necessarily having the best weather for a while. However, our concerns are the people who have not been consulted at all, and the minister has touched on them. Mad March happens because we have put a whole lot of events there, successful events such as WOMADelaide, Future Music Festival, the Fringe Festival, and the Adelaide Festival. Yes, it is weather related, but we also have a public holiday in that season which is in fact the height of our tourism and festival season, and there seems to be no consultation being done with those groups.

I would point to arguments that we could acknowledge mothers as carers in May as missing the opportunity that we have in March. International Women's Day falls on 8 March every year. I think most mothers are women, and so by celebrating women we could in fact—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: All mothers are women, but not all women are mothers.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Not all women are mothers; that's right. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire is right. I would also say that all women are daughters. I would point out that many countries around the world celebrate International Women's Day with a public holiday. Certainly, when the Hon. Steph Key was the minister for women she often talked about the possibility of celebrating International Women's Day in that March program of events. Sure, there would be many people who have an opinion about that.

I have concerns that we are jumping the gun, if you like, in not consulting all. When the March holiday was proclaimed, there were efforts to include volunteers in that day, and I acknowledge that that has changed in the schedule as well. I was involved in some of those early volunteer days around that March program and I would certainly not want to see carers or volunteers overlooked but I certainly would not want to see all the other groups that I have mentioned overlooked either.

I also find it odd that there has been talk of moving the Adelaide Cup to a Sunday, in which case you do not need a public holiday at all; you simply run the race on a Sunday in May. There are always options. The weather in May is often wetter and colder than the weather in March and that is reasonably undeniable. All of the events not exclusive to but including WOMADelaide, Future Music, the Fringe, the Festival and so on have all taken advantage of the March public holiday.

Some of those events would find it difficult to move to accommodate May as a public holiday and I think we would lose that built-up knowledge in the tourism community and the arts community of the three-day weekend we have there. With that, the Greens will not be supporting this amendment and we look forward to future debate on the Holidays Act.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Obviously this is an interesting topic for me simply because within the D4D (Dignity for Disability Party) and indeed the disability community, every day is carer's day and every day is a day to celebrate and acknowledge the contribution that carers make to our society. I think that it is important to note that, in fact, in South Australia and, indeed, I believe nationally, we already have a Carer's Week and a Carer's Day within that week. It occurs to me that the best way to acknowledge the work that carers are doing and the contribution they are making to society is to keep that day separate and purely focused on that work and that contribution.

I am concerned that by modelling this with Adelaide Cup Day we are, in fact, detracting not just from the contribution of carers but also from the Adelaide Cup. I think that both events deserve to have their own focus per se. I think there are things that we could do to use Adelaide Cup Day as a day to acknowledge carers without necessarily making the waters so muddied. For example, it occurs to me that sponsorship for carers to attend the Adelaide Cup as a form of respite might be an option, without the necessity of muddying the waters in the sense of a mixed focus.

I think the best way to acknowledge the contribution that carers make to our society is to keep these two things separate. I am very happy to debate this under what I think is the appropriate piece of legislation, and that is the Holidays Act.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have a couple of points arising from the debate thus far. The first point to note is that the parliament has made a decision on this particular issue—past parliaments, I should say—and that is that the Adelaide Cup holiday should be in May. The act, as it exists at the moment (the Holidays Act) says that the Adelaide Cup holiday is in May.

What has happened is that, for a small number of years, the minister issued a proclamation under the act which gave him or her the power to say, 'Okay, we're going to move the holiday from May to March.' I think the minister has outlined that the original decision was taken on the basis of the industry lobbying for and supporting the move, so it was not a pre-emptive strike by the government of the day but was done in consultation with the industry. The industry has now changed its position, and has done so for a while.

The reality is that the parliament, in relation to the Holidays Act, has expressed the view that the holiday should be in May. It is only the fact that the government (or the minister of the day) and the industry asked for it to be moved that the powers that exist in the act to allow these public holidays to be moved at the whim of the minister and the government has been used, and done so on a yearly basis. I think that is the first point to make in relation to this. The parliament's view is that it should be in May. It has not been changed. The government has not come in here at any time over the last decade and said, 'Let's change the act and make it March' and have the parliament either endorse that or not endorse that. It has just been done through the back door using this proclamation to move the holiday.

The second point to make is that the minister and the Hon. Ms Franks rightly raised the issue that there are some other events through the day on the Monday. However, I just remind those members that South Australia does not just belong to the CBD and the tollgate down to the south. There is a South Australia beyond metropolitan Adelaide, and that is regional South Australia; and sadly there are too few people prepared to stand up in this chamber and elsewhere and advocate on behalf of regional communities because the numbers are in the city.

People will talk about WOMADelaide and Future Music festivals, but do they talk about the Kernewek Lowender and the variety of regional festivals which had always operated on the basis of the holiday in May? That was the impetus for them establishing festivals, and they established festivals on that public holiday in May. My colleague the member for Goyder and a number of my regional colleagues have advocated passionately that often members who do not live in the regions forget that there is a part of South Australia beyond metropolitan Adelaide.

Yes WOMADelaide is important for those who attend, and yes Future Music is important for those who attend. I acknowledge that, but let us not forget the importance of regional festivals for regional communities who are struggling, and they are the fiercest advocates—together now with the racing industry which has obviously changed its mind—for saying, 'Hey, the act actually says that the holiday should be in May, and we in the regions have festivals, too. We believe we should be considered in a parliamentary debate on the issues. Don't just talk about those of you who are in the metropolitan area and the festivals that you attend.

The third point I would make in relation to mad March is that the current government is actually acknowledging that—because it has said that it has actually instituted a review—in essence we have a mad March overload. We have people arguing against each other at the moment in relation to these events saying, 'We've just got too many of them in March, and it would make much more sense to actually spread these tourism-related events throughout the year to a greater degree than we currently have.' That is not the Liberal Party raising that particular issue specifically or Family First raising the issue, that is this government.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Michael Wright is in the paper on it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Mr Wright, indeed, has supported this particular issue, but his influence from his viewpoint, I guess, is somewhat less than it might have been at times in the past, but that is for the government and others to argue. The point that I am making is that it is the government acknowledging the problems that a number of the festival organisers are saying already exist within mad March.

Those three reasons, clearly, are not going to change people's minds in relation to this issue, sadly, but I would urge members; and I will be amazed if this minister, frankly, brings a bill for the Holidays Act back within a month as he was talking about. I thought it was the ultimate irony to have the minister talking about what was sensible in relation to an approach from another member of parliament. I will stand corrected if within a month we are debating the Holidays Act, and happily do so.

The issue for whenever it is—or if it ever comes—that we come to debate the Holidays Act is that I hope members, at least on that occasion, will consult not just with the metropolitan-based festivals, such as Future Music and WOMADelaide, but I would urge them to put their eyes beyond the horizons of the tollgate and Gepps Cross and actually consult some of the regional festivals and the regional communities in relation to their views on this issue.

New clause negatived.

Clause 7 passed.

The CHAIR: Amendment [Brokenshire-1] 2?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: That is a consequential amendment. I withdraw that.

New clause 7B.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 3, before line 28—Insert:

7B—Review

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of section 3B of the Holidays Act 1910 (as to be inserted into that Act by section 6 of this Act) to be conducted and a report on the results of the review to be submitted to him or her.

(2) The review must include an assessment of the impact of the introduction of part-day public holidays on government, business and the community, including the additional costs resulting from part-day public holidays and, in particular, any additional Government expenditure in each financial year on matters relating to part-day public holidays (such as expenditure on wages and funding to organisations to compensate for the additional costs to those organisations resulting from part-day public holidays).

(3) The review must be commenced on 1 January 2013 and the report must be submitted to the Minister within three months after the commencement of the review.

(4) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after receiving the report, cause copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

This amendment was tabled late, but I think it is very important that we take this into consideration. The reason we believe this should happen is that, first, there are plenty of examples in this house where bills have been passed and members have used amendments in those bills for a review to assess ramifications with respect to the bill or, indeed, to ensure that there is some review process for unintended consequences that were not able to be explained when the debate was occurring.

The reason this amendment was not tabled with the rest of my amendments is that it was only yesterday when we were really able to drill into the issues around what scoping studies, due diligence, assessments, analysis and modelling had been done to ensure that there were no unintended consequences that were going to have a detrimental effect on jobs and the economy as a result of this.

Also, in my opinion, we did not get absolute commitments from the minister when it came to issues around the disability sector, the aged-care sector, the public sector (with police cross-shifts), and a host of other public servants who need to be reassured the government has properly costed this proposal and also, very importantly, where there has been no work done at all; that is, as the minister indicated in this place yesterday, the private sector and the impact of the changes.

Therefore, I am moving that we have a review. Without spending too much time on it, I do not believe that the government should have any fear in relation to this amendment. This amendment does not stop the deal from being brokered through the debate here today. We all know that we have a vibrant, deregulated CBD and we have two half-day public holidays. That done deal in the backroom has been rubberstamped here and in another place, so it has no impact on the primary reasons the government has introduced this bill.

However, I believe that the government should not fear this amendment because, surely, the government has done its homework. This amendment provides that there will be a three-month time limit. I acknowledge that that is tight but, with the expertise and the resources the government has, I for one believe that a good government could easily do this review within a three-month period. As responsible economic managers who I hope understand the pressures the business sector is under, the government should have all of this information at its fingertips. So, it should be easy and a non-issue.

A promise has been made to the disability sector that it will be no worse off under public holiday changes due to reimbursement supposedly achieved from savings because the government is not paying public servants from 5pm to midnight on the new part holidays but, instead, 7pm to midnight. However, even with the questioning on the disability sector yesterday, we did not get an absolute costing or, indeed, a commitment.

More and more people in the future will be affected, and I remind colleagues again that this is not just one year. This is perpetual (unless it is at some stage changed in the parliament). As more and more people in the disability sector rightly opt to self-manage their income, we need to ensure that they are protected, and this is just one example into the future. We did not even get an absolute guarantee yesterday from the minister that self-managed income earners with a disability will be able to be topped up in the same way as those that are NGOs that are providing a service to the government.

That is just one little example. I could go on and on but I will not, because it is already quarter to 10. I believe that this is a sensible amendment based on what we have done a lot of the time in the past—particularly in the last year or so when members have said, 'Let's have a review on this,' and it is clear to this house that the government has done no work, costings, due diligence, scoping studies, modelling, or anything, to see what unintended consequences there are for the state. If colleagues have not had a chance to read it, I will read subclauses (3) and (4):

(3) The review must be undertaken on the commencement of section 6 of this Act and the report must be submitted to the Minister within three months after the commencement of section 6.

(4) The minister must, within 6 sitting days after receiving the report, cause copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

In conclusion, there are very substantial unintended consequences in what the parliament is passing here today and I believe we need to have the transparency of those consequences through a review tabled in this parliament so at least it gives the business sector, the disability sector, the aged care sector, and many other sectors that will be affected in this state, an opportunity to see what the impact is and then be able to make some personal analysis on what they do to manage the way forward regarding the ramifications of this deal done in the back room. I commend the amendment to the committee.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have only just seen the amendment this morning myself but, in general terms, the Liberal Party has supported reviews. I think the Hon. Mr Darley moved a review in the long WorkCover debate that we had, and I think that was a sensible amendment and the Liberal Party supported it. The dilemma I have with what I understand is the drafting of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment and given the rushed nature—and, again, I make no criticism of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire in this debate—is that, as I read it, we would be enforcing a review prior to the event.

Let us say the act is proclaimed next week, or whenever. We would be doing a review before seeing what actually happens at Christmas and New Year. To me, whilst that might provide some information, it, in essence, reviews the current state of play at the moment. Given what we were told yesterday, the minister is going to say, based on his advice and others, that there are hundreds of awards and it will depend on how these things are actually determined.

So, to me, it makes more sense to have a review after a period of time when we have actually seen what happens. If the member wanted it sooner rather than later, it would seem the earliest it would make sense would be after 1 January next year. That is, you have experienced at least one round or one year of half-day public holidays on 24 December and 31 December and then starting 1 January next year you could have a review conducted of that.

I think, whoever is elected after 2014 and whoever happens to be the minister after 2014, when we would have had two years of wrinkling out of the system and tribunal decisions and enterprise bargaining negotiations and all those sorts of things, it would make even more sense, but that means that information would not be available to the parliament until after the election. Given where we are at the moment, I have asked parliamentary counsel to have a look at whether or not we can amend the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment on the run to have that review commence on 1 January, or words to that effect. As we speak, parliamentary counsel is having a quick think in relation to that.

What I want to clarify, I guess from the member's viewpoint, because I have not had a chance to discuss this issue at all with the member, is whether it is by conscious decision that he is wanting to have these reviews start next week, basically before we had had the opportunity to see any of the implications that might occur late this year, or whether he is interested or prepared to have a look at having a review provision which might start on, say, 1 January and have the minister report some time in the second quarter of next year, which means that whatever is established by that review will at least be made known to the parliament and the general community well before the 2014 election in relation to what the implications might be.

I think this chamber has demonstrated, as it did with the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment, that generally we are prepared to consider, and approve on many occasions, review provisions, because that is just providing information in relation to a particular issue. From my viewpoint, if we can establish something along those lines—again, I do not have a specific party room decision on this—given our general position relating to reviews and in the interests of keeping the debate alive at least for another hour or two while it comes from our chamber to the House of Assembly, it would give me the opportunity, if it was to pass this chamber, to consult with some of my lower house colleagues to see what their position is.

So, if we were to approve some amended form of review, at this stage I could only do it on the basis of supporting it to keep the notion alive while it gives me the opportunity to have a quick chat with some of my lower house colleagues, and we may or may not confirm that position if it comes back to the Legislative Council, or we may well say that at this stage it is something we cannot support. Given the nature of where we are, in terms of being forced to vote on these things today without proper time for consideration of a number of these issues, that is essentially where we are at the moment. So, while you and other members respond to that, I will have another chat with parliamentary counsel to see how easy it is to amend the amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: In response to the Hon. Rob Lucas, I have two or three points. First, the reason for suggesting that it be tight and in three months was that it became very clear in this chamber yesterday that no work had been done on the enormous amount of unintended consequences of this bill. It is in the best interests of business and the other sectors I have highlighted to give them an opportunity to see what is going to hit them in the future, that is why this review is important and that is why I put it up like that. Having said that, I think it is even more important that at some point in time there is a review.

Regarding WorkCover, if my colleague the Hon. John Darley had not moved an amendment for that review then we would be in an incredibly difficult situation at the moment with all of the scenarios around WorkCover and all of the ramifications there. Just to add to that, it has now been announced that WorkCover's unfunded liability has gone back over $1 billion. So, these review processes are very important. They keep governments on their toes—and that is our job—and they also give the sectors that are affected in any way an opportunity to have some understanding of the implications and ramifications of what we have done in the parliament.

Having said that, I would accept an amendment to this amendment on the run saying that if the majority of the members of this committee could see the wisdom in the review but felt that three months was too soon, and took on the valid points that the Hon. Rob Lucas has highlighted to the committee about having the review after we have seen the total ramifications of the first Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve issues, and all the other stuff that we have debated here in the last day or so, I would be happy, on behalf of Family First, to certainly support that on the run, that is, a further amendment to my amendment.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The government opposes this amendment for very good reason. The Hon. Mr Lucas has identified the flaw in this amendment, that obviously this amendment has just been cobbled together by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. I think it is another reason to get on the Leon Byner show. He had to have something, so he cobbled together an amendment. This is more about legislation by Byner than anything else. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that you will do a review seven or eight months before the first part public holiday.

The government admits that there will be a cost to business but, when you take into consideration that we are talking about 10 hours a year, the vast majority of people who work in this state would not apply. What you are doing is creating an extra cost and more red tape for business. You are overemphasising the cost this will have on business.

There will be costs. There will be a cost for hospitality workers, of course, and government workers and aged-care workers. We have looked at those costs, and we think the cost is acceptable, taking into consideration the importance of this quite significant reform. So, I would ask the committee to vote against this and take it for what it is: a late-minute amendment. This bill has been around for a little while.

You had plenty of time. It went through the lower house. You had plenty of opportunity, but you get a thought bubble on the way to work, 'I need to get on Byner today,' so you cobble together an amendment and jump on Leon Byner's show with it. It is just unacceptable to have legislation amended in this form, so we do oppose this. We do not believe it is necessary. We think it just adds more red tape and a cost to business. When you take into consideration 10 hours over a whole year for some industries, the cost does not warrant a review.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I just want to ask a question of the minister on my thought bubble. My thought bubble actually occurred because you did not answer one question because you have done no work. The question is—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Brokenshire will direct his comments through the Chair.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Sorry, sir. I should not get too stirred up. Through you, Acting Chair, the minister did not answer one question, illustrating that no work had been done on this. Whether it is three months or whether it is 15 or so months from now, my question to the minister is: if a review is done into this area what would be the red tape and the cost to business in doing the review? I thought it would be a review done by the government.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: To get information to make a valued and proper assessment of the cost, you have to contact businesses, and we do that quite often, so we know that it does take time and there are costs. When you consider the cost of these two part public holidays and the number of employees they will affect, we do not believe it is necessary to have a review. We think the red tape and the cost to business is unnecessary. As I said, when you consider that we are talking about 10 hours in a year, and it does not apply to the vast majority of people. We think it is just a cobbled-up amendment to get on the Leon Byner show.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Through you, Mr Chair, I have a question of the mover first, and then I will make another response. Why did the mover not also cause a review of the operations of the shop trading hours as part of this review, given it is a package that we have before us in this bill?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I understand the question is: why, further to what I have in this amendment, I did not suggest a review into the impacts of the shop trading hours? Well, the honest answer to that is that I did not consider that in the last 24 hours—since the minister did not give us the answers—but, again, it is a valid question by the Hon. Tammy Franks and, if on the run, that was to be added into this, then I would certainly look at that.

I would say to the chamber that this highlights that we are being rushed into all the deliberations and considerations around this. Yes, the government may have come out in November and said that they had done this deal, and that two sectors had done a deal, and that it was now being endorsed by the government but, in fairness to us, and in fairness to parliamentary counsel, they are not in a position, minister, to look at drafting amendments for us until they see what comes through the other house. It only came up to us last Thursday, so I think it is a point that could be accepted as another on-the-run amendment, and we could look at that. However, it again highlights what happens when things are rushed through this house.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would certainly echo some of the concerns that both the minister and the opposition spokesperson, Hon. Rob Lucas, have mentioned with regards to the timing of this review, in terms of the commencement of section 6. I have a question of whether one can delineate section 6 commencing, as opposed to the whole act commencing, in terms of a timeframe, and the wording here, and whether you would, in fact, be reviewing something before it had even happened? That does raise some grave concerns.

I also indicate that if you were to conduct a review, there are going to be changes that come in from many industries in the next few years and, so, the next year of implementation of this particular act, if proclaimed, will not necessarily be the same as the year after. So, there is a longer-term game here, and I think that if there is no review of the shop trading hours impact as part of any review, then the Greens will not look sympathetically at that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will just take the minister into my confidence and indicate that I suspect that if a review was to be conducted at any time, the minister would not have to worry about individually contacting the concerned stakeholders. I think all he would have to do would be to issue a press release and he would be swamped with submissions in relation to any review. If we could put him out of his misery, it is not going to be an onerous task chasing up submissions from concerned stakeholders.

I think the degree of controversy that has been engendered by this particular move from the government from a wide range of stakeholders in South Australia is that if there were to be a review, no-one would need to be chased up and pursued to make a submission. You would just have to issue a press release or send an email, minister, and I am sure you would be swamped with submissions from people wishing to put a point of view about the issue.

It would be a novel approach by the government to consult broadly industry, small business and others, prior to making a decision like this. Clearly this did not happen in relation to this deal. The only business group that was consulted was Business SA and, on the other hand, the shoppies union was part of the deal. So, in relation to a review, I do not think that there is going to be a concern about having to chase up people to put a point of view. I will move an amendment to subsection (3) of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment. That subsection currently reads:

The review must be undertaken on the commencement of section 6 of this Act and the report must be submitted to the Minister within 3 months after the commencement of section 6.

For the reasons we have outlined, that would occur virtually straight away and prior to 24 December and 31 December this year. The substance of my amendment, which I will move in a moment, put simply is that the review would commence on 1 January next year, and it would then have to be done within three months and still be tabled. So, the broad framework of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment would be the same, except that it would occur after the events of the end of this year. That is the only substantive change that I am making. Rather than commencing the review now, before the events have occurred late this year, the proposed amendment would mean that the review would start on 1 January. Therefore, I move:

The review must be commenced on 1 January 2013 and the report must be submitted to the Minister within 3 months after the commencement of the review.

Put simply, the report would start on 1 January as opposed to starting almost immediately. I think that essentially resolves the major concern that some of us had in relation to the timing of the review. The Hon. Ms Franks has raised another issue and, in principle, I do not have a problem with whatever the review is to review. The dilemma we have is that we are being forced to debate, resolve and finalise this issue this morning and, as the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has amended, that is one of the problems you face when you are forced into this sort of position by the government and its supporters.

From that viewpoint, I move that amendment and again put on the record that I am doing so on the basis at this stage of endeavouring to keep this issue of a review alive whilst there is further passage of the bill between the houses. It will allow me to have some urgent consultation with some of my lower house colleagues in relation to the review. I place on the record that subject to those discussions I have with my lower house colleagues, if the amendment passes this house and then was to come back to this house because it was rejected by the House of Assembly, then we would reserve our position in relation to what final position we would adopt on it.

As I said, we have not specifically had a discussion about this, but in general terms we have been supportive of reviews of controversial pieces of legislation because all they do is put fact on the record for all of us to see, then for us to make our own judgements about. I am not sure how anyone would argue against having facts being placed on the record in relation to what occurred as a result of some changes, whereas at the moment we are obviously working within the realm of the concerns. Some will be accurate, some will be inaccurate. I am the first to acknowledge that. So why not see what happens at the end of the year and then actually have a review and review the facts?

It may well be like the Cossey review in relation to the WorkCover Act which, as useful as it was, said that it was still too early to tell in some respects, and I think that is correct. We may well find even with a review on 1 January that we will be able to establish some facts but in other areas the reviewer may well say that it is still too early to tell and we will need to see after two or three years. That is why I was saying earlier that I think whatever happens to this review it would make sense for whoever is elected in 2014 to review the impact of these provisions on the broader community, on business, on workers and indeed anybody who is impacted by the changes we have.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: We oppose the Lucas amendment. I reinform the committee that I introduced this bill into the parliament on 15 March. That is now two weeks ago. It takes a thought bubble on the way to work yesterday to develop an amendment off the cuff. We have now have a handwritten amendment. It is totally unacceptable the way this process is operating. It will cost money for business and will have red tape. When you consider that we are talking about 10 hours in a year to a few industries and the overwhelming vast majority of people will either be home with their families or out celebrating on New Year's Eve. It is an impost on business they do not need, so I ask members to reject it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As a further response to the Hon. Tammy Franks' question, we were actually focused on the part public holidays, which is really the key issue of this whole debate. We are not really focused on the shop trading hours as such because I think everybody in the parliament is agreed that the shop trading hours, with respect to the deregulation and the vibrancy, are a given. It was the key issue—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Well, that's actually not true.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well, you can speak to that.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: You can speak to that. I have not heard you say that, I am sorry—I have not heard the Greens say that at all. Family First would support and accept the on-the-run amendment from the Hon. Rob Lucas because it makes sense. I have said the rest before, but if we do not have some review in this we have no way of measuring just where things are up to, and we will support the Hon. Rob Lucas's on-the-run amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will support the Hon. Rob Lucas's amendment.

The committee divided on the Hon. Mr Lucas's amendment:

Majority of 5 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; new clause as amended inserted.

Clause 8.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 3, after line 29—Insert:

(a1) Section 4(1)—before the definition of building insert:

ANZAC Day means 25 April in any year;

I will be brief on this one, given that we are trying to get this through this morning. I guess you could say that this is more about just defining in the act the actual namings. What has happened is, instead of actually talking about Christmas Day and ANZAC Day, which is what we have always talked about—two very, very special days—for some reason, in the drafting of the bill, and I am not critical of why it happened, the dates are actually talked about: 25 April, 25 December.

We believe that it is more appropriate and more correct and proper to actually specifically have in the act ANZAC Day, which is what ANZAC Day is. It is not 25 April: it is ANZAC Day. Christmas Day is actually Christmas Day. It happens to be on 25 December, but it is actually Christmas Day. So, for those reasons, we have moved that amendment standing in my name.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: We oppose this. ANZAC Day is already covered in section 3A of the Holidays Act. It states that 25 April will be a public holiday and sets out the arrangements for the transfer of this holiday when 25 April falls on a Sunday.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Could I just ask the minister to indicate again the reasons why? I missed the reasons why the government is opposing.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: We well and truly support the actual sentiment with regard to having it called ANZAC Day, but in section 13—the section that relates to trading hours for partially exempt shops on the excluded public holidays, which include ANZAC Day—to remove the confusion about the actual day the shops cannot open, it is better to use the date so that when 25 April is a Sunday, it is that day and not the public holiday that is closed.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, this is an issue that has not been discussed at all by my party room. On the surface of it, I am 100 per cent on side with the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and I think the court of public opinion would be 100 per cent on side with the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. However, I recall from my briefing with the government's advisers some weeks ago, this was an issue raised not in relation to ANZAC Day but in relation to Christmas Day, and the honourable member has, I think, a similar amendment in relation to Christmas Day, as opposed to 25 December.

For the reasons that the minister has just put on the public record, there are technical grounds or reasons why the act is drafted the way it is. I would be the first to hop into this government and all governments of a Labor persuasion for their undue reliance on political correctness and a whole variety of other dastardly deeds but, on this particular occasion, I think even I will have to concede that it is not political correctness that is driving this issue. It has been there for quite some time within the legislation. As I said, I do not think it is being driven by those in the community who, in the policy areas, do drive the politically correct line and seek to remove—either from the legislation or the policy of various departments and others—reference to Christmas Day in particular.

For those reasons, whilst I understand the sentiments—and I think on the surface of it there would be broad support for the thought behind the member's amendments—I think the technical explanation as to why it is drafted that way is something that I can personally understand. As I said, whilst we have not discussed this as a party room, at this stage we would not support the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 4, after line 5—Insert:

(1a) Section 5(5) and (6)—delete subsections (5) and (6)

Family First is moving this amendment because we still see a loophole in the actual act regarding future deregulation. To be fair to the government with respect to this matter, I do not believe that the government actually looked at this particular section because its focus was on the amendments it needed to get through. So I want to be quite fair and clear there. I am not having a go at the government at all on this; this is an existing clause that I believe we now have an important opportunity to amend.

Whichever way any of us feel on this debate, one of the things that has been very clear to me—and I think all my colleagues would agree with this—is that whilst a lot of people in the retail sector have said that they want to have the penalty rate payments if they have to work on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, when you actually look at what they are really saying, when you listen to the general discussion and debate around this, they are saying that they would prefer not to work. In fact, most of the people in retail I have talked to have said that they do not really want any more deregulation. In fact, the Labor Party, as a government, has said that it did not want any further deregulation, and I did say yesterday that the former minister, the Hon. Paul Caica, said that he thought they had the balance about right.

I think all of us have been fair to business from the point of view of giving them the green light for the vibrancy of the CBD, but when it comes to retail I think businesses are divided on whether they want any more deregulation. Clearly, Coles and Woolworths, Myer, those sorts of organisations, would love to have full-blown deregulation, but I know that people like Foodland and IGA, for example (and I will name them because they also said to me that they have concerns), and a highly respected company like Peter Shearer do not want any further deregulation.

When this debate was occurring, the government was using the word 'forever', that this would forever fix the deregulation debate. Nothing is forever, but there is an important process in strengthening the argument about forever, and that is to ensure that, if there is to be any further deregulation, it has to come through both houses of parliament in a democratic way.

I think it is fair to say that the SDA has been very consistent for as long as I have been in this council, and in the other house, about not wanting further deregulation. The reason why we have been debating whether or not there should be two half public holidays is that the SDA, on behalf of its members—because this has all focused on retail—has said that if it had to agree to this to see the vibrancy of the CBD occur, then it wants reward for effort for its workers. I still believe that the baseline of the SDA is that it actually does not want any further deregulation because retail workers are already working long hours, a lot of very flexible hours and on weekends.

On a Sunday, for example—which is now one of the busiest trading days—whilst it is supposed to be voluntary as to who works, the fact of the matter is that employers lean on the most experienced retail workers. As uni students, my children have worked in retail and hospitality. The reality is that employers do not want uni students (like my daughters) working on a Sunday: they want their best, most experienced people.

I understand clearly all of those issues around the debate. As I said, I do not believe that the government had time to look at the whole act. What this proposes is that, to ensure that the forever issue is addressed with respect to any further deregulation, we have to have—and we can have if this amendment is passed—the checks and balances that I believe are part of a democratic Westminster system; that is, it has to go through both houses. If the Liberal Party happened to get into government in the future—its policy is full-on deregulation—it would have to actually go through the processes.

So that there is no misunderstanding of this, this clause I am seeking to amend is a clause that actually allows exemptions for periods of up to 14 days, which we have seen, for example, with the Adelaide Cup long weekend during Mad March. It is fair to say that any government of any persuasion needs to have a minister with the capacity to make exemptions at times.

I will just give a quick example. Let us say that Prospect is celebrating a Centenary and they decide that as part of that they want to be able to have a 24-hour trading period, or whatever. The minister should have the right—and the parliament should give the minister the right—to be able to make that exemption.

In fact, we are leaving in the part that says that a minister can declare exemptions for a period of up to 14 days. What we are actually removing is the part that says that the minister would have the power to grant an exemption beyond 14 days, e.g., years or indefinitely. It would be possible under the act, from the legal advice that I have had, that the Adelaide metropolitan shopping district could be deemed to be a district with such a broad-scale exemption, that it could apply under that clause.

It says that the minister has to consult with interested persons, but my legal advice is that it could actually be argued that if the minister placed an advert in a newspaper which drew minimum responses or did a web poll, that would be deemed to be enough public consultation and, therefore, through a de facto situation, we could have a situation where we had deregulation indefinitely without it coming through both houses.

I hope I have explained that to everyone. I think this is a sensible amendment and it puts any further deregulation forever as the responsibility of the lower house and the upper house of this parliament of South Australia.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The government is prepared to support this amendment. We consider that it does add value by reducing red tape for small businesses and providing certainty about shop trading hours arrangements into the future. We are prepared to support it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: For reasons that I have given before, the Liberal Party is not in a position to be able to express a view but if the government is supporting it (and I assume other supporters are) then our attitude can be left happily sitting on the fence. I want to clarify that the amendment, as I understood it, was to delete sections 5(5) and 5(6). The Hon. Mr Brokenshire just indicated that, in essence, all he was seeking to do was to get rid of the indefinite section. He was going to allow the minister this power to exempt his Prospect example. Is that correct?

I have taken the advantage of having a quick discussion with parliamentary counsel and their advice is that—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: The very honourable parliamentary counsel.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, exactly. Their advice is that clause 5(4) of the act, which is not being disturbed by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, gives the minister the power, without any consultation at all with anybody to, in essence, issue these exemptions in the Prospect example (or whatever else it is) for a period of up to 14 days—so it allows that—and subsection (5) says that if you want to do it for longer than 14 days, then you have to go through a process of consultation with interested persons, which are residents, shopkeepers and shop assistants, etc. Subsection (4) is the one that would allow the continuation of that. My question to the minister is: have subsection (5) and subsection (6) for an indefinite period been used by the minister—not this minister but by this government?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Not since the act was last amended in 2003.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The obvious question then is: if it has not been used since 2003, in living memory of the officers who have control of the act, was it used by previous governments and, if so, for what purpose?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: We are not aware of any time that it has been used and that is why we think it is appropriate to have it taken out.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On that basis, whilst my position cannot change because we have not discussed this in the party room, the fact that this appears to have been a redundant section of the act and has never been used by Labor or Liberal governments in the past, for the purposes the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has highlighted, and the government has obviously taken the view that it has not been used and it is unlikely to be used, one of the interesting issues I was going to ask was that if it had been used, how had the ministers determined what the majority view of shopkeepers and shop assistants who work within the shops had been?

It is an interesting issue. I presume you would have to do a survey of all the shopkeepers and shop assistants within the shopping district. Whilst I cannot give a position, on the basis of what the minister has suggested I suspect we would not have a problem with supporting the amendment either, although at this stage, as I said, our view will not be significant given the government support for it.

I will make one other point just to correct the record, because it is often said. The policy the Liberal Party took to the last election was not for full-on complete deregulation or whatever it is. It was actually for a further liberalisation of shopping hours. The policy we took to the 2010 election does still involve regulation in relation to, for example, Christmas Day, Good Friday, half of ANZAC Day, Easter Sunday and a variety of other controls that are in that policy.

Whilst it is a statement often made by Labor ministers and members, for the benefit of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, as I would caution him on any other occasions: do not always accept what Labor ministers and members and their confreres within the shoppies union say. That is not a fair or accurate description. Our policy in 2010 was certainly for a considerable liberalisation of shopping hours, but it ain't, to use the phrase, full-on 24/7 deregulation.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 10.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has an amendment.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I formally advise that that is withdrawn.

The CHAIR: All of them?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I advise that we are withdrawing amendment No. 5 and that amendments Nos 6 and 7 were consequential. The next one that I will speak to is amendment No. 8.

The CHAIR: Amendment [Brokenshire-1] 8, clause 10.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 4, before line 30—Insert:

(6b) Section 13(6)—after paragraph (b) insert:

and

(c) after 7:00 p.m. on the day before Good Friday in any year.

This amendment is to do with Maundy Thursday or Good Friday eve. As I said earlier, it was very clear to Family First—and I am sure all my colleagues agree—that one of the real worries for workers in retail is how much they are required to work these days. Whilst now there will be choice with respect to the issue of the two half public holidays for the workers, many of those workers, and indeed some of the small businesses, do not want to be tied up working or opening their shops after 7pm on Good Friday eve because it does give quite a lot of them one chance of a four-day break. That is the intent of the amendment.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: This amendment seeks to close non-exempt shops at 7pm on the eve of Good Friday, when shops in all districts can now trade until 9pm. This is a particularly busy shopping night for people stocking up on the extended Easter long weekend, and this removes the choice of traders to trade until 9pm if required. Employees also lose the opportunity to work and earn wages during that two-hour period. We will be opposing the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This comes right within the bailiwick of the comment I made at the start of the committee stage, that is, this is not an issue that we have specifically addressed as a joint party room and therefore at this stage I am not in a position to support this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has subsequent amendments. You are not moving those?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Mr Chairman, amendments Nos 9, 10 and 11 are consequential, and therefore they are withdrawn.

Clause passed.

New clause 11.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 4, after line 34—Insert:

11—Amendment of section 13A—Restrictions relating to Sunday and holiday trading

(1) Section 13A(1)—delete subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a term of a retail shop lease or collateral agreement in respect of a shop situated in a shopping district that requires the shop to be open—

(a) on a Sunday or day that is a public holiday; or

(b) after 7pm on the day before Good Friday or on a part-day public holiday,

is void to the extent of that requirement.

(2) Section 13A(3)—delete subsection (3) and substitute:

(3) A person who is employed to work in a shop in any shopping district is entitled to reasonably refuse to work on Sundays and public holidays unless he or she has agreed with the shopkeeper to work on a particular Sunday or public holiday.

Again, this amendment relates to the message I was getting not only from workers within retailers, who emailed and postcarded and contacted us in other ways but also from some small businesses.

To an extent, the situation is that workers will not have to be forced to work on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve, but there is still the issue of Maundy Thursday. What we are basically doing by moving this amendment—and they are subject to conditions which legal advice told us that we had to leave—is to try to help the workers in retail, in particular, and those small businesses that do not open, and they would be small businesses primarily in shopping centres that are put under the hammer, as we all know. For years and years, I have had small businesses that operate within Centros and so on come to me and say, 'Robert, we really don't want to be opening, but the pressure on us to open is phenomenal.' So, some of those small businesses are almost under as much pressure as the retail workers.

The crux to this amendment is that it will give workers and small businesses the right to refuse to work on Maundy Thursday (or Good Friday eve) after 7 o'clock. As I have said, it is covered now through the government's amendments with respect to Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, but these workers will still have no choice but to work until 9 o'clock on Good Friday eve (or Maundy Thursday), simply because it is not a half-day public holiday, and therefore their award says that they have to work. All I am trying to do here is to give a choice to those retail workers of whether or not they work on Good Friday eve (Maundy Thursday) and also with respect to those small businesses.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: We oppose this amendment. This amendment seeks to add to a public holiday on Good Friday eve to the current provisions that void shop leases where shops are required to open on Sundays. The amendment also seeks to allow employees the right to reasonably refuse work on Sundays and public holidays. The commonwealth National Employment Standards currently provide the right to reasonably refuse shifts on public holidays to employees in all industries, and this extra provision is not necessary.

The government, as mentioned in debate on earlier clauses, does not support the provisions relating to a 7pm closing time on the eve of Good Friday. It is a busy time of the year. People are stocking up on their goods for the long weekend, and you would be denying the right of working people, who are very often low-paid people, the right to earn that extra two hours of wages.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is again within the realm of not having been discussed by the joint party room of the Liberal Party, so I am not in a position at this stage to be able to support the amendment as it is drafted. We certainly support the provision, and we have a record of having moved similar, if not the same, amendments in the past in relation to seeking to ensure on public holidays that workers cannot be compelled to work. I know that there has been discussions about businesses not being compelled to open as well.

As the minister has outlined, under the Fair Work Act, however, there are provisions now which broadly provide those sorts of protections. The member's amendment, as the minister indicated, does extend that to Holy Thursday, in particular, after 7pm. But for the reasons that I have indicated, I am not in a position at this stage to be able to indicate support, whilst nevertheless being supportive of the general notion the member is raising, and that is that on public holidays those who do not want to work should not be forced to work.

New clause negatived.

New clause 11.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Page 4, after line 34—Insert:

11—Review

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation and impact of the amendments to the Shop Trading Hours Act 1977 made by Part 4 of this Act to be conducted and a report on the results of the review to be submitted to him or her.

(2) The review must be undertaken in conjunction with the review under section 7A of this Act and the report must be submitted to the Minister at the same time as the review under that section.

(3) The Minister must cause copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament at the same time as the report under section 7A is laid before both Houses.

I move this amendment because earlier in this debate we sought a review of the part-day public holidays that will be instituted under this act, but we have not looked at the impact of the shop trading hours reforms that are also a key part of this packaged bill. Without the trade-off of the public holidays there would be no bill before us with regard to shop trading hours.

Without acknowledging that this comes as a package, not all members of the community or parliament support unrestricted deregulation of shop trading hours. We realise there are both costs and benefits to that, and for the costs there has been a trade-off that there is a benefit coming to workers in terms of 10 hours additional public holidays in the South Australian calendar for those who are required to work on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.

Overwhelmingly, the public has shown that it is in support of recompensing those who are required to work on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. We think there will be an impact on those shop workers who are going to be required to work in these newer trading hours, but there is also a financial benefit coming out of that. We cannot look at one small part of this bill with a review if we are to be honest and transparent in our government. We need to look at the impact of the entirety of this bill, not just one small aspect of it.

I indicate that the Greens move this amendment as an indication that if there is to be a review it is to be a holistic review, it is not to be a political witch-hunt or campaign tool for the next state election to be used to whack the government on the head with. It has to be holistic in its approach, it has to be transparent and it has to put all sides of the argument, not just assist with the polemics of this debate that have happened so far. With that, I indicate that the Greens may not look favourably on a lack of a holistic approach to any review, should this go between the two houses.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I thank the honourable member for her amendment. The government, for the reasons I have stated earlier, does not support a review. The government believes the red tape and costs associated with a review would be an impost on business. We understand there is going to be a review, if this gets through parliament on the two part-public holidays. Now we are going to have a review into the shop trading hours. The shop trading hours will create, in our view and in the view of many of the organisations that we are dealing with, a significant economic benefit to the CBD. It will also activate and make the city much more vibrant. So, we are quite sure that the economic benefits arising out of this far outweigh any costs that may be associated with it. We oppose the amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Again, this is not an issue that the joint party room of the Liberal Party has addressed. We supported the review earlier with the caveat that from the passage of this bill to another place it will give me the opportunity to discuss the issue with some of my lower house colleagues and, on that basis, I have never been fearful of putting facts on the table. I can understand that it is quite appropriate for this minister to argue that ignorance is bliss. They do not want a review, they do not want the facts put on the table.

Certainly from my viewpoint, I have never had any objection to having a review which would put facts on the table and better inform the debate. They may or may not change people's views on legislation and the impact of the legislation but nevertheless it is a review. From that viewpoint, personally, I have no problem with the length, breadth and depth of a review. I support this proposition. On behalf of my party at this stage, therefore, consistent with my earlier views, I will support it with the caveat that if and when it comes back our position is reserved as to what our final position might be. My suspicion is that the majority of my colleagues (those I am able to consult) are likely to be more supportive of a review of a broad nature than not.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I take it this is the same time line as the review that I put up that was passed. I think transparency, reviews, assessments and then allowing consideration is a good way to go. This dovetails in with the earlier review that I put up that was passed, so Family First will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I do not have any problem with the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendment.

New clause inserted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (10:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that this bill do now pass.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I rise at the end of this particular debate to indicate the Liberal Party is still strongly opposed to the deal that has been done and now the amended deal that looks like passing this chamber. I want to indicate that we remain opposed, as we have been all along, to the deal. We are not seeking to divide on the final motion at all. We just want to record the fact that now that the bill has come through—even though some amendments have been passed with our support—we still remain opposed to the deal because of the additional costs that are going to be imposed on small businesses.

We remain hopeful that perhaps the review will throw some light on the situation. I suspect that it may well be that we will need a couple of years or so to see what all of the implications will be of the various crossovers between awards and National Employment Standards, enterprise bargaining agreements and this new legislation. In our view, it should continue to be monitored and whoever is elected after 2014 will need not only to review but then to make their own judgements in terms of what an appropriate way forward might be.

Bill passed.