HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (SHOP TRADING AND HOLIDAYS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr BROCK (Frome) (19:30): I would like to talk on this proposed bill that is before us tonight, and I want to make it very clear that I am a believer in people who work at various times being correctly remunerated accordingly and being remunerated accordingly through the appropriate channels, that is, the industrial relations system. I would also like to make it quite clear that I certainly believe that retail facilities should be able to trade at what they consider the best times and certainly agree that the trading hours for Rundle Mall in Adelaide should be when appropriate.

I have previously worked in small business, operating a roadhouse at Port Augusta and, although it may have been many years ago, I certainly have a fair understanding of the constraints and challenges that are facing small business in regional South Australia. My partner, Lyn, is also a small business operator—and I make that quite clear. We have a small business in Port Pirie (a hairdressing salon), and we are certainly affected by any proposal that may happen. The proposed bill before us now has, in my opinion, been very badly promoted outside the Adelaide metropolitan area.

People I have spoken to in regional South Australia regarding this bill thought it only related to the CBD area and, in particular, to the Rundle Mall operations. I would also like to point out that Port Pirie in particular has enjoyed deregulated trading hours, and at one time the supermarket chains of Coles and Woolworths, both endeavouring to obtain the greater share of business in the retail sector, actually operated 24 hours per day, seven days per week. This certainly was very appreciated by those who wanted to shop at these times, in particular, shiftworkers from the smelters, those in hospitality, and also the health service nurses and doctors.

If those people who wanted to work during these times did so, they were appropriately remunerated for their services under the appropriate awards, and this is still the case today through the industrial relations system. I repeat: this is still the case today, as I understand it, through the industrial relations system. We can still allow for the extra trading hours for businesses in Rundle Mall without creating additional half-day holidays. We already have sufficient holidays in this state, and small businesses are always struggling to cope with the extra demands and remunerations they have to pay out.

The times the government is proposing—that is, Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve—will have a dramatic effect on small businesses, and if they do open then they will not be able to pay the increased rates of pay without increasing the rates of their services dramatically. They may still operate, but they will only operate their businesses themselves, saving the wages. By doing this, they will prevent those who may have worked under the current award systems, receiving no pay whatsoever.

It was mentioned earlier that there are many people who take these part-time jobs and may be working only five or six hours a week, but they may be eliminated and prevented from getting any remuneration on these two particular days. Small business operators in South Australia are already struggling, and it is in these times that they may be able to just make up some of the leeway with their overdrafts and overcome some of the financial constraints they already have.

It appears that Business SA has not really communicated or consulted with their smaller business members, because of the ever-increasing responses which are coming forward now. I am still receiving phone calls and letters from all over my electorate of Frome—in particular from Clare, and also from Port Pirie and Port Broughton—asking me not to vote for the half-day holidays.

I have spoken to numerous business organisations and chambers of commerce. The first that they were aware of the true direction of this proposal was by reading it in the media or being advised by me. They were under the impression that this bill only related to the CBD area of Adelaide and, in particular, to try to get extra trading hours for Rundle Mall.

Although I live in a regional location where trading hours are extended for seven days a week, I believe that the people in the City of Adelaide deserve the same opportunities that we enjoy in regional South Australia. They can enjoy these extra facilities by allowing the extra trading hours but not by creating additional public holidays. If these business operators elect to close at these times, then not only will the current staff not get any pay but it will have a dramatic effect on tourism in these regional areas, and other locations and businesses also could suffer.

I do not have to answer to any political party. I am representing the businesspeople in my electorate, and the people who work there, and I am doing so tonight. I cannot endorse nor support the bill in its current form and I encourage the government to seriously consider the small business operators in the state and to do everything in its power to ensure their continued viability. I certainly hope that the government will look at increasing the opportunity for trading hours in the metropolitan area of Adelaide, but not at creating an extra financial burden in penalty rates.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (19:37): I rise to support this bill and, in particular, the part of the bill that establishes part-day public holidays between 5pm and midnight on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.

I would like to look at one particular sector, and that is the police and our emergency service workers who have long fought for decent pay when they work Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. As someone who, in a previous job, was rostered to work those hours, I know that it is a big burden to be away from your family when Santa is meant to be there putting out the presents and when all your friends are welcoming in a new year. I believe there is an imperative that people should be rewarded for working those very antisocial hours. We do it for a local horse race; we do it for the Queen's birthday that is not actually celebrated on that day but we have a public holiday. There are few bigger nights of the year than Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve for bringing together family and friends.

I was contacted by Mark Carroll, the President of the Police Association, who asked me (and I am sure other members in this place) to support this bill and, in particular, the section of the bill that provides penalty payments for police officers. In his letter, he wrote:

The Police Association has attempted, through many enterprise-agreement negotiations, to address its members' concerns in respect of payment on New Year's Eve. SA Police rosters a large contingent of police officers who work on New Year's Eve to start between 7pm and 7.30pm. Owing to this rostered start time, our members are not entitled to any payment at public-holiday rates for work they perform after midnight. This is because they work the majority of their rostered shift on the non-public holiday New Year's Eve.

This creative rostering results in on-duty police officers being deprived of the public holiday penalty rate. Many of them are compelled to work overtime and might, ultimately, work a 12-hour shift. Successive governments have failed to act on the strong need to address this issue because of the requirement to amend the Holidays Act, which brings the obvious flow-on effect. It is therefore of great interest to our members to see the successful passage of this bill which will eliminate the injustice they have endured for many years.

If any sector of our workforce deserves justice, it is the hardworking men and women of the South Australian police force. They are out there day and night, putting their lives on the line, going into trouble as others are fleeing it. We should get this argument back to where it really belongs and take a holistic view of the entire community of South Australia and what it means for all those people.

The debate has been hijacked by well-organised groups that are doing a good job on behalf of their members, and I refer to the MTA and the AHA. No-one can blame them for being out there and being great lobbyists on behalf of their members. However, I think what we need to do is not worry so much about what the people who are paying the money are doing but look at the consequences on the workers, and the fact that they have to give up so much of their life and their time with family and friends to work these nights when most members of our society do not have to.

It has been in the paper, from the caterers association and the AHA, that cellar doors are going to suffer. There are 65 cellar doors in the seat of Mawson; I have not received any complaints from the cellar doors I have visited since this news was announced that people are worried about it. I have had three emails, and they were all form emails which are sent out by the larger, statewide wine body. The reality in the wine industry is that cellar doors do not usually open after five o'clock, so there is not the need for cellar doors to pay their workers extra money.

I spoke to the chief financial officer of a large winery in McLaren Vale yesterday and asked why he was taking up this fight. He replied, 'It is because we are worried that people will not go out on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.' I just do not think that is a reasonable argument. It is not affecting his business directly; he just thinks that people are not going to go to restaurants on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve because it will be price prohibitive to do so. Many people go out on Christmas Day for lunch, and for those who choose to do so there is a penalty attached to their meal and their wine. No-one bats an eyelid at that. What is going to change?

People can run around and say that the sky is going to fall in, but quite clearly it will not. People will still choose to go out on Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve if that is what they want to do for those particular nights of the year. To say that wine sales will fall because people are not going out is just ridiculous. If people are not going out, and they have a propensity to have a glass of wine, they will go to the bottle shop and buy one, two, three bottles of wine and consume it with their friends and family on those two nights.

I think we need to get a sense of reality back into this argument. While I congratulate the AHA and the MTA—and they have been in here watching this debate over the past couple of days—on their ability to mobilise members and their ability to push through with their message, let us look at the 81 per cent of people in the news poll who say that they are in favour of these penalty rates on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve. I was at the mall today, and people were volunteering to get postcards to send to our colleagues on the crossbenches in the upper house. I signed a couple of those for a couple of members up there, and I saw a lot of other people lining up to sign. We need to listen to our whole society and not just to special interest groups—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Finniss, you were very audible then in your comments and it was very unparliamentary.

Mr BIGNELL: People show the member for Finniss respect when he is on his feet in here talking; if he wants to come in here, wander around and just badmouth people then maybe he should go elsewhere. Look at the editorial that I read out today from the local newspaper, saying that he was held in very low regard by people in the community of Kangaroo Island for what he said about the Prime Minister—

Mr Pengilly: Your turn is coming, son; your turn is coming big time.

Mr BIGNELL: Nice threatening behaviour from the member for Finniss; nice threatening language from the member for Finniss. It is no wonder he gets editorials written about him. Shauna Black won the South Australian Country Press award for the best editorial because she captured exactly what the people of Kangaroo Island think about the member for Finniss. They are not very happy to have him as their local member of parliament when he comes out and says the things he does. She said that he would have no respect from people on the island and that people within his own party would not listen to his views.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr GRIFFITHS: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I do respect that after the dinner adjournment there are some spirited debates, but how about the member for Mawson getting back to the intent of the bill?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, member for Goyder. I ask the member for Mawson to get back to the substance of the debate, please.

Mr BIGNELL: I am quite happy, Madam Speaker, to get back to the substance of the debate, which I was doing quite well until being interrupted by the member for Finniss. I will get back to the police, our emergency services workers and others in our community who will benefit, quite rightly, by this legislation, which will reward them for working on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. As I said at the outset, I support the bill and, in particular, I support the part of the bill that establishes part-day public holidays between 5pm and midnight on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood) (19:45): It is my great pleasure to speak tonight on the Statutes Amendment (Shop Trading and Holidays) Bill. Of course, I have been scheduled to be one of the very last speakers so many of the key points in this debate have already been covered by those people who have spoken before, but I think it is important at this point to look at a bit of a summary of what has occurred to date.

The very first thing that comes to mind here is that there is furious agreement. There is furious agreement between the government and the opposition benches that we need to deregulate shop trading hours in the CBD. For bringing that point to the house, I would like to acknowledge and thank the very hardworking member for Adelaide, Rachel Sanderson, who has worked extremely hard to bring the government around to this very obvious point, a point that has not been lost on the people of South Australia, that is, that we need to stop the embarrassment—the absolutely shameful embarrassment—that our CBD was closed during public holidays here in South Australia. So, thank you very much to the member for Adelaide. And, thank you very much to the government for coming around to this very obvious point of view.

It is of course, a little bit surprising to us in the opposition that the government has chosen to adopt the member for Adelaide's suggestion to liberalise and deregulate the shop trading hours in the CBD. It is surprising because she introduced a bill to do this very thing that the government is proposing now, only last year. What was the government's response as late as November last year? What was the government's response? It was outrageous.

In fact, the member for Mawson, who has just been standing up extolling the virtues of this particular bill that is before the house at the moment, told us only last November—only four months ago—that this was a heinous crime that should not be done. It was going to create a massive rift between metropolitan Adelaide and the city, and this would not be good for his people in Mawson. The member for Little Para spoke at length—

Mr BIGNELL: Point of order. The member for Norwood is verballing me. I didn't say anything was a heinous crime.

Mr MARSHALL: Madam Speaker, I am happy to retract that statement 'heinous crime', but there is no doubt that the member for Mawson stood up in this parliament—it is in Hansard and we can all read it—and spoke very passionately against this very deregulation that his government and Premier are now putting forward. What an incredible backflip in just four months. The member for Little Para spoke out about it. The Deputy Premier (Hon. Mr Rau) came into this place and told us this was a bad idea.

So, what has actually happened in the last four months? Let me tell members what has happened. The government has worked out that the people of South Australia want to be able to go into their shops on public holidays. They do not want South Australia being the butt of jokes around this country, and good on the member for Adelaide for bringing this to the parliament's notice.

Of course, it is incredible to us also in the opposition that not only has the government accepted the position of deregulating shop trading hours on public holidays but, believe it or not, after all their protestations last November in this parliament and all their protestations over the last 10 years, they have gone further than the Liberal Party policy over the last 10 years. Instead of deregulating shop trading hours down to 3½ days per year (they being Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday and half of ANZAC Day), they are now proposing to go down to 2½ days. So, they are actually proposing even further deregulation than that they have actually opposed over the last decade. What an incredible backflip.

As I said, we are in furious agreement on the first three sections of the bill before the house. In fact, it is not just before the house. The Premier was so confident with this proposal of his, he went out and announced it to the people of South Australia before he actually brought it to the parliament. We have all been enjoying shop trading hour liberalisation on public holidays. In fact, we were able to shop on Monday this week. We have all actually been enjoying it, so congratulations to the Premier. Of course, he did go out and say to the people, 'This is going to happen, but the trade-off is going to be that we will be creating two half holidays.'

This is where the problem starts because the Premier cannot actually make that promise to the people of South Australia. The Premier does not decide when we have holidays: the parliament actually decides when we have public holidays. He has fallen into exactly and precisely the same trap that the former premier fell into when he stood up at the solar cities conference several years ago and said, 'We are going to increase the solar feed-in tariff rebate from 44¢ to 54¢.' Well, do you know what? The premier could not do that. In fact, the parliament pointed out to him that he could not do that, and it did not pass this house.

Of course, now we have the embarrassing position for the new Premier where he is very worried that his first substantial piece of legislation he has introduced to this place since being made the Premier of South Australia is looking extremely precarious because he has promised deregulation, which is an extremely popular Liberal idea, but he has put something with it which is extremely unpopular. This is where the rub actually occurs.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: Eighty per cent. That's unpopular, is it? Are you reading it upside down?

Mr MARSHALL: No, I'm not. So, let us actually have a look at some of the arguments that the government has put over the last couple of days of debate on this topic. The first point they make is that this is going to be the very final debate ever on the issue of shop trading hours. The Labor Party loves making historic announcements. Here is another one from the Premier: this is the last time we are ever, ever going to talk about shop trading hour liberalisation in the future history of this state. What a load of rubbish. We have been talking deregulation of shop trading hours over the last 30 or 40 years.

In fact, the government has huge form on this. Premier Rann put it in writing before Labor was elected that they would never, ever deregulate Sunday trading in South Australia. What did he do after they were elected? It was deregulated. So, they have got form on saying something will never, ever happen in terms of deregulation and then actually backflipping, and this is going to be one of them. The Premier is trying to assert that, if we do not all sign up to this dirty agreement which is before the parliament at the moment, then it is your last chance. You are never going to see it again. This is a historic agreement. It is now or never.

Of course, the other point that all his ministers and members have been coming into the house making is that if you do not sign up to this agreement you are going to end up with the Liberals' plan, which is some sort of evil. In fact, we heard the Minister for Small Business today refer to the Liberal Party as the 'dark side' and that the plan of the 'dark side' is going to be to destroy competition here in South Australia. All of a sudden, we are going to be taken over by Woolies, and we are going to be taken over by Coles, and there is going to be no competition in South Australia if we go with the Liberal plan.

What a load of rubbish. In fact, this was perfectly highlighted to the parliament yesterday when the Deputy Premier, the second-highest ranking elected member—and I use that term 'elected member' very carefully there—of the Labor parliamentary team, stood up in the parliament and said that if we are not careful in South Australia we are going to be taken over by Coles and Woolies. By way of example, he talked about fuel prices in South Australia, and he boasted that one of the reasons why we have the lowest fuel prices in the country was that we had not gone down this path of total deregulation. Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story. I had to point out to the Deputy Premier that the trading hours of petrol stations had in fact been completely and utterly deregulated for years and years. So, the very example that he demonstrates to the parliament—the evils of total deregulation—is actually an example of where we have had total deregulation. And, guess what? Our petrol prices are the lowest in the country. So, it is a great example that the Deputy Premier wants to use.

In reality, this is a dirty deal. The Premier has got himself into a very precarious situation. He has gone out and promised the people of South Australia that they are going to have what they want, which is deregulated shop trading hours in the CBD. What people do not want, though, is a massive increase to the cost of their business, and this is absolutely fundamental.

As the shadow minister for industry and trade and the shadow minister for small business, it is my responsibility to stand up in this parliament on behalf of those businesses and say, 'This is not good enough'. There is no logical connection whatsoever between the liberalisation of trading hours and increasing public holidays unequivocally leading to increased costs to the business community in South Australia. I want to give some examples.

I have recently been down to Mount Gambier. They have had, by the way, complete deregulation of shop trading hours for many years, and, guess what?—they still have competition down there. The last time I was down there, there were plenty of independent retailers. Coles and Woolies had not taken over the entire South-East; in fact, there were some fantastic local businesses which were operating extremely successfully.

The people down in Mount Gambier do not think it is at all fair that their costs—in their small businesses, in their aged-care facilities, in their petrol stations—are going to have to go up. Why? What are they going to get in return? What they are going to get in return is that the people in Adelaide are going to get deregulated shop trading hours in the CBD on public holidays. Hello? Do you know what they were asking me: 'What's the connection'? There is no connection. There is no obvious connection, unless we just scrape a little below the surface and work out who has actually suggested this to the Premier.

I put it to you that this is unequivocally the suggestion of the SDA. The SDA is actually running this state at the moment. This is why the government was so violently opposed to it last year: the SDA would never agree to it. All of a sudden, it has, but what is the price? The price is two new public holidays for South Australia. It is just not good enough. It is the parliament that decides these things, it is not one union, it is not the SDA, it is the parliament that will decide these things.

In the final minutes of my speech, I would like to take the member for Mawson to task. The member for Mawson quite rightly points out that people work very hard and, when they work very hard, they should be rewarded. He specifically talked about people working on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve. He said that these people should be paid more money. Again I say to the member for Mawson and to the government: these two issues should not be connected. If the member for Mawson and the government believe that these people—doctors, nurses, people working for the public sector—should be paid more on those two nights, they are completely within their rights to pay those people additional payments on those nights. They could have done this at any time over the last 10 years, but they choose to do it now and make some sort of crazy connection with the deregulation of shop trading hours.

This is a pig of a deal. It is a pig of a deal for the small business sector, it is a pig of a deal for industry. The government has it half right: we do want a vibrant city. Unfortunately, this Labor government has let the City of Adelaide wither on the vine for the past 10 years. Every single initiative that the Liberal Party has put forward to make our city a more vibrant city, every last one—and I am talking about the Riverside redevelopment, a Liberal initiative; I am talking about bringing football into the city, a Liberal initiative; I am talking about deregulated shop trading hours, a Liberal initiative—has been opposed by this government.

It is a bit rich for the government to come out now and say, 'It's all or nothing. It's both of these or you can forget about it'. We call on the government to push through its liberalisation of shop trading hours and to forget about the massive and unnecessary cost increase to all small business in South Australia.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (20:00): I thank members for their contribution. Can I begin by reminding members why we are proposing this reform. The government does want a vibrant city, but we also want to protect what we think all South Australians want, and that is the relationship that exists between our CBD and the broader Adelaide community and our towns and cities. That is, we want to protect or enhance the vibrancy of our city centre, but we also want to protect what people increasingly regard as one of South Australia's great strengths—the family friendly nature of our suburbs.

Most importantly, we also want to protect family life; that is, the opportunity for people to spend time with their family and friends at those special times of the year. I make no apologies for reflecting those values in legislation. I am proud to say that it has the effect of providing additional rights to working people in this state.

I heard the most extraordinary contribution from the member for Norwood, who suggested that people do not want this. He seemed philosophically incapable of considering the matter from the perspective of working people. It would only take a moment's analysis for him to realise that the greater burden of working on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve falls on the individual who is called to do that.

In any sort of sensible analysis of the proportionality of the effect on a business or the worker the massive burden of adjustment falls on the working person in that scenario. To not even actually mention it in his contribution just demonstrates how philosophically incapable those opposite are of considering matters from that perspective.

We also want to protect something else that we value very highly in South Australia, and that is an independent retail sector. This is a very significant element of this legislation, the capacity to protect our very strong, independent retail sector here comprising about 30 per cent of the retail sector in South Australia, which is a South Australian phenomenon which has massive benefits for a range of our producers in South Australia, in particular our fresh food producers and our processed food producers, many of whom get a start by getting on the shelves of independent retailers.

We know that this is a crucial part of our objectives for promoting our clean, green food to the world. Many of these small producers get a vital start, and it does have the effect of ameliorating that extraordinary market power that we see from the other large retailers, Woolworths and Coles. These are the important benefits of this legislation.

Can I rebut some of the points that have been made those opposite? It has been suggested by the member for Davenport and, I think, more latterly by the member for Norwood that somehow this involves a violation of the announce and defend versus debate and decide proposition that I put forward for public debate. I must say I am having trouble with this concept. Aren't we involved in the middle of the most public of public debates? I do not know how much more open I could have been with the South Australian community. In December last year I proposed these matters. In this year—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left, if you want to participate in the debate, do so in the proper way or you can leave the chamber.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There is no way the deal could be done. The deal requires the assent of the parliament, and I knew that from the start. That is why we always said we would be bringing legislation to the parliament. So the first thing we did was make at the earliest opportunity a public declaration of the government's position. Then we made a ministerial statement about the nature of the public debate, then we introduced legislation into the parliament, so there is a full and adequate debate, and the debate has been raging in the community. So, the notion that somehow this amounts to some announce and defend—that applies to executive action, it does not involve the parliament. Of course we have to have the parliament supporting this legislation, that is why we are in here making our case, that is why we are powerfully advocating our position.

This is not a debate that has arisen in the past few months. This is a debate that has been raging in this community for years and years. It has been raging between the ears of the member for Davenport for over a decade. Back in 1994, he was an ardent restrictionist. He did not want deregulation of shop trading hours. Then he found himself in support of deregulation of hours on Sunday morning. Then, as leader of the party, he was in support of total deregulation. He now comes in here unable to find himself in favour of support of this modest amount of deregulation in the CBD. The debate has been going on—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I rise on a point of order. The Premier is totally misrepresenting my position. He just said that I do not support deregulation in the city. The record will show that is simply not true. My opposition is to the two public holidays.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It is what you said, Jay. Go read the Hansard.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Mr Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Premier, take a seat; there is a point of order. There is no point of order.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Isn't there?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You know there isn't. You know there is no point of order. If you want to make an explanation you have to make a proper explanation. The next member who interrupts without proper cause will leave the chamber.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: He cannot find himself in a position to support this legislation that involves a small deregulation of shop trading hours. The suggestion that somehow there has not been a debate is an abject nonsense. We have an opportunity, as I have said before, to once and for all settle this debate. The reason why I say that is not because there is not an opportunity to come back to this parliament and propose legislation. My point has been—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Unley, you have been warned—last warning.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The reason why I say this is not because it is not capable of bringing a piece of legislation to this parliament, it is just that there will be no substantial constituency in favour of further deregulation if we do this. Just consider it: there will be a massive lobby in favour of the city maintaining its advantage in relation to present shop trading hours, should this pass; there will be a massive constituency in the suburbs for those independent retailers who have an interest in maintaining the status quo to ensure that their business models are protected. There will simply be no significant voice in the community in favour of this, and of course the whole of the working movement, represented by the trade unions and other working people.

That is the sense in which we say this will settle the debate for all time. The reason why there are independent retailers and grocers who are supporting this legislation is that they understand that fact, they actually get it. They understand that this will break the capacity of the large retailers (Woolworths and Coles) from ever being able to get a majority in this state for the further deregulation of shop trading hours. We know there is a political party that has on its books the deregulation of shop trading hours almost in toto, subject to a few public holidays they are prepared to preserve. That has consistently been the position of the Liberal Party, and up until recently it was the position of Business SA.

This is the point that really explains why this is such a crucial and historic deal; that is, because the shop assistants union had to do something that I think they never would have contemplated, and we certainly would not have expected from them, which is to involve themselves—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Unley, you were warned. You can leave the chamber.

Mr Pisoni: For how long?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Fifteen minutes.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You got a discount; you are very lucky.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much, member for Unley. Do you want to add some more time to it?

The honourable member for Unley having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: One needs to understand the nature of this compromise in that, on the one hand, Business SA would never have contemplated anything short of total regulation; on the other hand, the shop assistants union would never have contemplated the possibility of its members working on public holidays. But both of those large institutions, which have really been the protagonists in this debate for many decades, chose to come together to settle this issue in the interests of their members. Of course, both of them have had to lead and both of them have had to make a judgement of what is in the long-term best interests of their various constituencies, and I think they both made the correct judgement. That is why we as a government were prepared to support this, and we knew that it needed the support of the government to bring this into law.

The importance of this reform is one which is not lost, I think, on both of the organisations that proposed it, and it was a long debate within their constituencies to be able to come to a view about this. Many of us would have expected that this would have been an unresolved issue in the life of this parliament. We have an opportunity now to resolve it—opening our city but also protecting those things we like about it—and, in doing so, I think, to reach a very sensible and practical proposition about the expansion of two part-day public holidays.

The other point that was made by the member for Davenport and others is that this is somehow an illegitimate use of the public holiday legislation—that somehow it is trampling on the federal industrial relations system. I think this is simply misconceived. Under the referral of state industrial powers to the commonwealth, all private sector employers and employees are now covered by the Fair Work Act 2009.

The nature of that referral protects and preserves, through the National Employment Standards under the Fair Work Act 2009, those people who receive appropriate penalty rates of pay under relevant industrial instruments. It was contemplated to operate consistently with various pieces of state legislation, such as the Shop Trading Hours Act and the Public Holiday Act, and it has always been thus. It has always been thus that there is a relationship between the state Holidays Act and various industrial instruments, whether they be federal awards or, indeed, state awards.

The public holidays and shop trading hours legislation have always interacted with the awards system, and it really does reflect judgements that are made about essentially a complex set of regulatory arrangements, which are not just about one thing or another. It is not just about shop trading hours and workers' remuneration; it is also about the pattern of the retail industry that we want to see in this state. Of course, that has implications for remuneration.

But I must say that it is passing strange to hear organisations such as the Motor Traders Association, which benefit from a particular restriction in the shop trading hours—at their request so that they do not have to compete over very long deregulated hours for what they regard as a limited market, which would not necessarily do anything other than spread their employment costs over a much larger period—claim that it is somehow illegitimate. They are the beneficiaries of the restrictions in shop trading hours in certain respects, yet it seems to be put against us for our using the shop trading hours to have a particular affect on the pattern of the way in which industries develop is somehow illegitimate.

There has always been a careful calibration of shop trading hours to reflect what the community regards as the appropriate disposition of the pattern of development of retail industry in this state. It is a pragmatic decision, but it is one that has served this state well. We are not simply deregulationists for the sake of it. We think that there is a strong role for competition in certain circumstances, but there is also a strong case for it in the public interest in other circumstances.

Much has been put about the effect on small businesses and, in particular, regional businesses. Can I say this: while there has been much made of regional businesses and small businesses, not much has been said about those workers who work for those businesses and we unashamedly are a party that believes in representing the interests of those working people.

We think that on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, family time deserves protection in two ways: first, the right to say no to work at that time and, secondly, the opportunity for higher rates of pay. I think the community overwhelmingly supports that judgement. That is why, the longer this debate goes on, we are happy to talk about this all day and all night, week after week, because we believe the community is with us. If it is going to take you that long to actually understand this and respond to the needs of the community, we are prepared to do that.

I believe that the effects on business that have been suggested are exaggerated. We are talking about 14 hours in a total of 8,760 hours within a working year, and it should be remembered that the overwhelming majority of businesses are not open on these evenings or, if they are open, they are open for a short period of time.

There simply has not been detailed evidence brought to us about the deleterious effect that this will have. For those businesses that are in fact suggesting that this is going to be the end of the world as we know it, it is difficult to square that up with those businesses that already trade on public holidays, and many of them do in their interests on those occasions.

For those hospitality workers who work on these evenings, we know that many informally are given premiums merely to attract them to work on these evenings, so we know that there is already a recognition that it is difficult, and there are some additional burdens and difficulties associated with working on these evenings.

I will address a number of specific issues that were raised by a number of speakers which can be disposed of quickly. The member for Davenport suggested that there was an issue of substitution of the proposed public holidays for the next day, should they fall on a Saturday or Sunday.

That is in fact specifically precluded by the legislation, so that issue does not arise under the legislation that we are proposing to the house. Clause 6 of the bill lists the actual dates of these part-day holidays that are affected in that way, and they do not include the half-day public holidays that are proposed here. The remaining matters I can address in committee, perhaps.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: The member for Davenport indicated a number of amendments to this matter. The first amendment which seeks to amend clause 1 is required only if other clauses are passed, as I understand it. Do you wish to speak to that amendment after or do you wish to speak to that one first?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: As a point of process, we have a number of questions to ask on the clause. Do you want the questions before we move the amendment or after we move the amendment? From our side of the house we would be happy to ask the questions first and when that is all over move the amendment and work through it that way—it would be a simpler process.

The CHAIR: I do not have a problem with that. The point I am trying to clarify is that with the amendment to clause 1, if the other clauses fail, then I understand that clause 1 is redundant.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, I intend to move all the amendments down to—

The CHAIR: In that order?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, I think I will do them in numerical order, yes.

The CHAIR: I am happy for you to do that. If you wish to clarify some issues before the other clauses by opening up clause 1, I am happy for you to ask questions then but deal with it after you have dealt with the other ones because it only comes into consideration if the others are passed.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: We can do questions on clause 1 now.

The CHAIR: You can do that. I will open up clause 1 and you can ask questions and we will defer consideration until we have dealt with clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Member for Davenport, you have the floor in terms of questions.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: A question on clause 1: prior to introducing the legislation, why did not the Premier consult with the aged-care industry and the disability industry about the impacts of the legislation, given that they have told the opposition that there will be significant cost increases to those two groups as a result of the legislation?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: As I outlined, I do not think I could have been more public about our intentions. We made an announcement in December of what our intentions were, that we would be bringing legislation to the parliament in the new year. We set out in all relevant detail the nature of the legislation. It is not very difficult to understand: it is the extra public holidays trading and the two half-day public holidays. We have now presented the legislation to the house and there has been a full public debate, and there will continue to be one through the course of the stages of the parliamentary debate.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Premier, how did the cabinet consider the impact on the disability and aged sector if, prior to cabinet making a decision, it had no input from those sectors as to the likely cost impact of the legislation?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We assessed our judgement about whether to support this legislation on the effect it would have on working people and the effect on their remuneration and also an understanding of the relatively modest effect it would have in relation to the other sectors. This is confirmed by discussion with leaders within the aged-care sector, despite what is suggested by the Aged Care Association. We have feedback from the aged-care sector that this is a very minor issue in the total scheme of things in relation to the aged-care sector, a question of thousands of dollars in payrolls of over millions of dollars. This is a relatively minor impost in the overall scheme of things, but obviously a very important issue at the level of each individual employee.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: How did cabinet consider the impact on the disabled community and the cost of care to the disabled community if it was not consulted prior to cabinet signing off on the decision to implement the legislation?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: By the same process. It is a relatively modest change in the overall cost structure of any enterprise: 14 hours throughout the course of the whole year is a relatively minor impact. We weighed that against the importance of providing this additional remuneration and the additional opportunities for working people on those evenings.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Premier, you said that you had consulted widely on this and you just said then about the aged-care sector. Down at Glenelg we are very lucky to be a tourism precinct and we can open extended hours. We have a number of aged-care facilities that are going to be impacted by this, and I know that from talking to them.

However, the issue that we need to recognise and a big part of our problem is that—and I use Glenelg as an example because we already have extended trading hours down there—the businesses there now are very concerned. I will read some emails, if you like, as evidence—not just anecdotal but firsthand evidence from businesses there to say that they really are suffering. One particular business has a business in Adelaide as well as Glenelg and it is paying its casual staff over 21 years of age, $42 an hour because of changes to public holiday rates since early 2011. They have said in their email to me:

Should the proposed changes go through State Parliament re proposed Christmas and New Years public holidays we will have no further choice but to...only trade our take away services only for these evenings.

They are going to shut down their dining services. They state here that the proposed laws will actually backfire and result in reduced business income as businesses remain closed or partly closed (as in their case), and reduce staff income as they only roster a quarter of a team on takeaway services versus a full team. The suggestion of surcharges are simply unrealistic in the highly competitive hospitality retail sector. In fact, there are no real winners. That is one email. There is another here from a seven-day food place, like a mini supermarket. It states:

...I am thoroughly opposed to any change. At this time, small business is doing it tough, I know of very few traders who would speculate that times are better...Staff costs for my business represent almost 10% of sales, with a 25% margin this leaves very little to cover rent and other outgoings.

Another one states:

Business just cannot sustain such costs and it would adversely affect the purpose of even opening during these times. You may think 'Well just don't open' but then we lose market share to the bigger chains and department stores who can put on skeleton staffing numbers...core hours should be at normal pay rates, regardless as to whether these hours are considered 'significant socialising hours'...As it is, I haven't paid myself for the past 3 years. It leaves me wondering in the wee small hours of the morning why [am I here].

Premier, I have more and more evidence from local traders at Glenelg who have extended hours because of the tourism zone down there and they are going to be badly affected. I spoke to one major hotelier down there who said, 'We will just put a surcharge on our business, so the punters are going to be paying for your half days.'

There is real evidence of this: it is not just anecdotal evidence and it is not just scaremongering. These people are doing it tough and they are paying $1,000 per square metre for rent down there and they are having to pay now $42 an hour for casual wages. That, in itself, is a different issue but you are imposing more hours on these people and they just will not open.

The CHAIR: Premier, do you wish to comment? It was not a question but do you wish to make a comment at all?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

Mr PISONI: Premier, can you name the businesses and/or business organisations that were consulted about your plan to introduce two additional part public holidays—the public holiday on Christmas Eve from 5pm and the public holiday on New Year's Eve from 5pm—before you took your submission to cabinet, before bringing it to the parliament?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We, of course, consulted with Business SA, the peak business body for the whole of South Australia. I know that it is fashionable to criticise Business SA and try to character assassinate Mr Peter Vaughan, but he has obviously made a decision that those opposite are incapable of making. He has managed to think about the broader interests of the state and the broader interests of the whole of the business community in South Australia, as opposed to the narrow interests of a small section looking at this issue in a very narrow way.

I must say, interestingly, that my initial response from the AHA, when we spoke to them before we made our public announcement, was that they were going to take a positive stance in relation to this. They wanted to negotiate some of the details but they did not seem alarmed by the matter.

Of course, it is interesting to note that the significant members of the key protagonists in this debate, the AHA and the MTA, are Woolworths and Coles. That might tell you a little about where those organisations are coming from. We, of course, have consulted through the process that we have adopted, that is, the public announcements in December, the ministerial statements and this parliamentary process. The whole of the community is capable of putting their point of view, and obviously I am in the hands of the parliament.

Mr GARDNER: I note that the Premier in an earlier answer talked about his consultation with the aged-care sector when answering the member for Davenport's question about the effects on the aged-care sector and the disability sector. Can the Premier outline the consultation he had with the disability sector in relation to those groups that are going to have increased charges on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: As I said before, we have had the broadest possible exposure of our proposals to the community, and people are free to put their points of view forward. I think the disability sector has generally accepted the view that I think has been reflected most recently in the SACS Award increases—the substantial increases that have been awarded to workers in the disability sector, through the good work of Prime Minister Gillard and supported by our government—to properly remunerate people who work in the disability services sector.

I think workers in that sector for too long have had the sort of implications that probably underlie the member for Morialta's question, and that is that the clients are always raised as the excuse for why the workers in the disability services sector should accept less than fair wages. We do not accept that, and we do not think that there is any good reason why workers in these sectors—the aged-care sector and the disability sector—who traditionally have been quite lowly paid, should be treated any differently from any other workers.

This is a proposition of general application. It is a point of principle: public holidays being declared, in part, on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve represents a social norm. It represents a social norm we believe in. Of course this has consequences for the world of work, where people are required to work, where they are remunerated when they work on those days, but that is a social value that we uphold. We think that is what is being put about the effect on businesses is exaggerated.

Mr GARDNER: I note that the Premier in his response did not identify a single person or group in the disability sector that had been consulted, but I will leave that to one side. My understanding is that public servants will attract an increased pay rate and will be duly compensated, and police officers and others will attract the increased pay rates on these hours.

I am interested in the organisations and the companies that provide services on behalf of government and, in particular, Disability SA. If those groups do not have increases in their block grant funding or in their contract funding for individual contracts for the services they are supplying then the choice will be stark: either the service will be reduced or removed, or the cost will be greater.

Even before Fair Work Australia's ruling to increase the pay rates which the Premier has just espoused and which will hopefully make the sector more attractive for people to enter, has the government made any funding commitment at all to any of these organisations or companies that will meet the increased costs? Alternatively, how much reduced service does the Premier expect to see?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The truth is that the work that is done on those evenings is very limited in relation to those sectors. Our advice is that the overall cost impact would be negligible. Much of the work that is done by those people that requires very extensive amounts of care is generally provided by the government sector, which has been, of course, funded through the budget process. Those things have been addressed through a budget provision.

Mr PISONI: You mentioned in a previous answer to a question that having public holidays on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve, and therefore increasing the rates of pay for people working on those days, is the social norm. Could you name other jurisdictions in Australia or elsewhere in the world that have public holidays on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: West Virginia; there we go, there's one. We do not resile from the fact that we have decided that this is what works for South Australia; we accept that. There are other states with different patterns of public holidays. New South Wales has an additional public holiday than we have here in South Australia. It has always been the province of states and territories to determine their own public holidays. I think the ACT has an additional public holiday. This is how we think South Australians overwhelmingly see these evenings.

What has not been mentioned in this debate thus far are the particular religious groups that have significant celebrations on Christmas Eve in particular. Many orthodox communities have one of their most substantial celebrations on Christmas Eve. A number of faiths regard Christmas Eve as the more important celebration than even Christmas Day itself; I think the Polish community, to offer one, and of course a range of faiths. My own faith, the Anglican faith, generally has the midnight masses on that evening, which commence, obviously, well before midnight. Many people are making preparations, and those who do not have faith, of course, like to have family time on those evenings.

We think this is a South Australian solution and I am proud to say that we want to enshrine that in legislation. The overwhelming majority of this community supports it and that is why we are approaching the parliament asking for its support.

Mr GARDNER: I just want to clarify the Premier's previous answer in which he described the costs that would be increased in the disability sector as negligible. I think he said that there was a budget provision that would compensate for those clients who are covered by Disability SA direct government services. I just want to clarify though whether that budget provision provides any extra funding to the block grant or the contracts for those clients who are serviced by organisations or companies rather than directly by Disability SA employees.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The most recent update by the Treasurer outlines the particular areas that he made provision for. There was a provision made in the budget which covers the particular services that are provided by the state government which are affected by the new penalty rate. That budget provision was, I think, announced at the last budget update, the Mid-Year Budget Review. The Treasurer certainly made an announcement to accommodate the changes that have been made since I have been in this role. There was a range of changes, and this was one of them that was accommodated in that budget update. I can provide the detail of what that covered in that budget update.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier outline to the house what consultation has taken place with the small business sector, and the business sector in general, in regional and rural South Australia, the sector of our economy which, of course, is going to suffer increased cost even though the deregulation will occur in metropolitan Adelaide, in fact in the CBD, many miles away from the place that they operate in?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Member for Norwood, if you had been in the chamber you probably would have heard my previous answer, which was a generic one. I brought this to the parliament. We made an announcement of our intentions in December. I flagged my intentions to approach the parliament in January. Prior to bringing the legislation to the house, we made a ministerial statement setting it out. Our intentions have been known for over six months, and all members have had the opportunity to consult their constituencies and to put their point of view, and that is no doubt what we are in the process of enjoying right now.

Mr MARSHALL: Premier, just for clarity, no specific consultation was undertaken by the government with the small business sector in regional and rural South Australia whatsoever? It was just generic. You put it out there six months ago and members of parliament could consult and maybe feed that into the government, but the government did not do any specific consultation with the small business sector in regional and rural South Australia?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am sorry if it does not sound too grand to have the Premier of South Australia make a public announcement and try to communicate with every citizen in South Australia, but that was the nature of our communication. Of course, this proposition was developed in part by Business SA, which has an important role. It is the peak body for all businesses in South Australia. I mean, it might seem like a small matter that you would like to assume away, but the most significant business body in South Australia decided to promote this proposition.

I think that we were entitled to rely upon that in forming our views about going out to the broader community, and that is precisely what we did. Now, you can criticise that body, but it does happen to be the peak business body in this state with a venerable history, probably as long if not longer than the history of your party. I think that it is a significant institution in this state. It is an institution that is enshrined in legislation in a range of ways. It is an institution that this parliament has resided with its trust and faith about representing the interests of the business community in a range of tripartite legislative arrangements.

So to somehow suggest that we should not be allowed to take note of that business body in formulating our position just because it happens to disagree with the Liberal Party of South Australia, well, I am sorry, I disagree with that proposition. Now, does that mean that members should not be allowed to come in here and agitate the issue and promote different points of view? Of course not, and that is why we are here. We are here debating the issue.

I have got to say that I think the debate on this issue has been as full and as robust and as developed as I have seen on many issues in this house. In fact, I had one upper house member today say that she had more representations on this than she had on the euthanasia bill, which is a very substantial achievement.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: My question is to the Premier. The Premier indicated earlier that the response from the Australian Hotels Association initially was generally supportive and it wanted to negotiate a couple of details.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Sorry—generally positive, and it wanted to negotiate a couple of details. Is it true that the Premier contacted the Australian Hotels Association about the extra public holidays after cabinet had already made the decision to introduce legislation?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, we do not comment on the timing and the nature of cabinet deliberations, except to say this: I contacted them before I was about to make a public announcement.

The CHAIR: Member for Davenport, I will allow this as a supplementary. I just bring your attention to the fact that you have actually had four questions already and I have been lenient. I am happy for you to have one supplementary.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Okay. I am happy to go onto clause 2.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I want to ask a question. Premier, I have a question on behalf of the owners of two regional newspapers in my electorate who contacted me yesterday. They had received some advice from the Printing Industries Association indicating concern that, while they have staff who will be out reporting on local events on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve, all their staff would incur a liability for public holiday payment for those times between five and 12.

Can you just clarify that it is only applicable to people who would be rostered on to work and there will be no penalty attached to the employers of people who work in industry, such as the newspaper industry, and it is not all staff members who will be liable to a penalty payment?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I think I can confirm that it will be only those workers working during the hours of the part-day public holidays.

Mr PEGLER: Premier, I can understand why you would be making a decision based on what Business SA has said in the support they were giving to this proposal, but at any stage in developing this proposal did Business SA inform the government of the consultation process that they had gone through with their membership?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, we did have discussion with Business SA about their decision-making processes, and they accepted that there would be elements of their membership that did not agree with this, but there would be, in their view, the overwhelming majority of their membership that did agree with it.

They were also taking a broader view about what was in the interest of business across South Australia; they took the view that this settled an issue which had been plaguing the state for decades. They take a view about South Australia and its reputation in the broader community, which is more than just the interests of any individual business. They see that, in a sense, a rising tide lifts all boats; so, to the extent that South Australia has a better business reputation generally, it is good for all businesses.

The extent to which we have a vibrant CBD, that lifts the interests of South Australia generally. The extent to which we can resolve a vexed debate which has been going on for decade in this state, that is good for business generally. So they understood; they had their eyes wide open. They were taking a broader perspective about this than the particular perspective of any one interest.

Just as, say, people like the independent retailers have taken the view that, while it may involve some increase in penalty rates for them on these two evenings, the broader protection of their business model through the rampant growth of the large retailers in a totally deregulated environment is something that they were prepared to accept as a trade-off. They understood that there was essentially a trade here, and they were cognisant of that, but they thought on balance it was worthwhile.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Although I note this comes up later in the bill, I would like to raise it under part 2. Why did the government choose Christmas Day, Good Friday and ANZAC Day only as the days it would set aside for no trading and, in particular, why did the government choose Good Friday over Easter Sunday, and why did you not include Easter Sunday in the list of those days during which trading should not occur?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I imagine it was because Good Friday is regarded as the holiest of days; it is the day when some people regard the maker of the universe died for the salvation of the whole of mankind.

Mr Whetstone: Are you making light of it? You're making light of it.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: No, he's not.

Mr Whetstone: Are you making light of it, or—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: No, he's not.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You had better not accuse me of that, sunshine, otherwise you will find yourself out of here very quickly.

Mr Whetstone: Hey, I'm not 'sunshine'.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Members, could everybody just take their seat for a second.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order—

The CHAIR: Let me finish. The member for Davenport will have a chance in a second; I will give you a chance to raise a point of order. I would ask all the members to just cool down a bit. Member for Davenport.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I will just make the point that when the Premier says to my colleague, 'You will be out of here very quickly—'

Mr Whetstone: 'Sunshine'.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: '—sunshine,' the Premier has no authority to do that. The Speaker may, but we know the Speaker is independent. The Premier has no authority to do it; I will just make that point to the Chair and, indeed, to the Premier.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

The CHAIR: Premier, take a seat, please. Firstly, it is not a point of order, and secondly I don't think you need to tell me how to do my job, member for Davenport.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The CHAIR: Yes, you did; I am happy to get the Hansard down and indicate how you did.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Members on both my left and my right made comments which were unhelpful, and I was happy to let them go. If you want me to go strictly by the book, I am happy to do so on both sides. Premier, I think it has all been said, and there is nothing else to be said. Member for Waite.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Given that for most people in the Christian community Good Friday and Easter Sunday go together (Good Friday being the death of Christ and Sunday being the resurrection), I ask what consultation the government conducted with the heads of churches to test their support or otherwise for your decision for the first time in the history of the state to open up Easter Sunday to trading in the city, and what was their response?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We made a judgement based on extending these hours in a limited way. The judgement was made in a pragmatic way to ensure that this was not extended more broadly. I think that there is great sympathy within our cabinet, the broader community and some of the significant proponents of this change for there to be no trading on any of these religious days.

I think the pragmatic decision that was taken by the shop assistants union, which has very strong views about protecting the sanctity of some of these holy days, was that unless they made some accommodation for the interests in the community who were concerned to expand shop trading they would find themselves in a more deregulated environment.

That has really been the motive for many of the people in this debate, many who would not be obvious supporters of trading on any religious days but who have taken the view that it was sensible to open up, in a limited way, certain shops within the CBD so as to protect the restrictions on shopping more generally in the whole of the state on all of the days, including Easter Sunday and Good Friday. I think that is the nature of this judgement here.

You need to realise that there is no appetite, necessarily, for people to permit shop trading on any of these days, but there is an acknowledgement for religious reasons (realising that this does intrude upon religious days) that there is an acceptance that some people want to shop on these days and some people are prepared to work on these days. We wanted to constrain the extent to which that change is made, so the judgement was made that this is a sensible compromise between those two ideas.

So it is not a question of trampling on those religious days, it is a question of understanding that we live in a pluralist society where some people do not regard those days as being as important as others, but there are some people who regard them as extremely important, and we try to take what steps we can to protect family life for as many people as we possibly can.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The Premier has not answered my question which was specifically whether—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Did you support this measure, member for West Torrens, in the party room? Did you fully support trading on Easter Sunday?

Members interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Very good. Thanks for clarifying that.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Do you? Do you support 24-hour trading now?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I just wanted to—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Do you support it?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: No, I didn't, and I just want to clarify that.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Well, isn't it your policy?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: But it's nice to know it has your personal support.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: But it's your policy, though. It's good to know that you've come out against it. Thank you very much!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: My question to—

The CHAIR: Minister!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I think I have struck a raw chord, minister. I have obviously struck a raw chord.

The CHAIR: Minister!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: You must be saying one thing to others and another thing in your own party room, minister.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Waite, resume your seat for a second.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes, I will.

The CHAIR: Both the member for Waite and the minister will be asked to leave in a second if they do it again. Both of you will be asked to leave. Member for Waite.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The specific question I was asking the Premier was whether he, as the proponent of the bill, had sought formally the opinions of the heads of churches and whether he had met with them to discuss their views on this fairly historic decision for a government to declare Easter Sunday a shop trading day. Was there formal consultation and what were the results of that consultation?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am familiar with the views of the religious community about any trading on any Sunday, and it remains the same for all Sundays. The truth is that any of them are days on which our religious community would prefer that people did not work at all. It is called the Sabbath, and it is something sacred in terms of worship but also in terms of no work. Many people observe those in different degrees, but it is generally the case—and I am familiar with this; I do not need to ask—that they would regard each of those days as days of worship and not days of work.

However, I have to make judgements that are broader and the cabinet has to make judgements that are broader, trying to protect as much religious and family life as is consistent with living in a pluralist community. That is what we sought to do with this decision, and we believe we have achieved the correct balance.

The CHAIR: Member for Waite, you have used up your questions; you will have to wait. We are still on clause 1. I have been very lenient; I think I have allowed quite a bit of debate on this clause and have been more than fair. The questions will come up in other clauses; there are plenty of clauses.

Ms CHAPMAN: We have read in the paper, of course, and there have been public statements, of Mr Malinauskas and Mr Vaughan having struck a deal—they suggest a compromise—to bring forward trading hours with a holiday component. My question to the Premier is this: have you made any decision to progress this matter in the preparation of a bill before or after you were advised of the agreement?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: My decision, to take to cabinet for its consideration of the issue, was influenced by the fact of an agreement between Mr Malinauskas and Mr Vaughan. However, I can say that the nature of the support for this bill goes well beyond those two gentlemen. It is their two organisations and, indeed, I am sure almost the whole of the trade union movement and working people generally, and a very large section of the business community, including all those businesses that exist in the CBD and, of course, the whole independent retail sector that see the benefits of this change.

Ms CHAPMAN: With the proposal set out in the compromise reached between Mr Malinauskas and Mr Vaughan, having been presented to you and you then taking a proposal to cabinet, was there anything different between what was presented to you by those two gentlemen and what you took to cabinet? If so, what?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We do not disclose what is taken to cabinet, but we made our own independent judgement about what should be part of this arrangement. My recollection is that the matters that ultimately did find their way to cabinet differed in some degrees from the nature of the discussions that occurred between Mr Malinauskas and Mr Vaughan, and indeed their respective organisations.

In one respect, in particular, we are proposing a series of much broader reforms to streamline the way the Shop Trading Hours Act operates to assist the easier promotion of exemptions under the act and some other administrative arrangements that are promoted to the legislation. That certainly has been part of the government's decision-making in relation to this matter.

Ms CHAPMAN: Then, apart from some administrative things and the processes that apply to the proclaiming of certain days (which, I think you have explained, Premier, you have tidied up while the act was open), the trading hours and the holidays proposed are exactly as have been presented by the proposal to you, is that the case?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will have to take that question on notice. I am not precisely sure that every single detail of the nature of the agreement that was reached between Mr Malinauskas and Mr Vaughan is reflected in every detail in the legislation.

Can I say this: we have made an independent judgement that there should be two part-day public holidays on Christmas Day and New Year's Eve and that the other holidays, as now opened in the CBD, should be part of the legislative framework for shop trading hours in South Australia. I think they, in substance, are the matters around which agreement was reached by Business SA and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association

Ms CHAPMAN: I thank the Premier: I have had my three questions. But, if he is taking this on notice, perhaps he could clarify: is there any aspect of the agreement reached between Mr Malinauskas and Mr Vaughan which the government rejected from the package specifically? So, when he takes it on notice, I ask particularly if there is any aspect which he has decided in his independent judgement that was simply not acceptable to be presented to cabinet? I will look forward to receiving those details.

The CHAIR: Premier, would you like to move postponement of further consideration of clause 1 until after consideration of clause 7?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I move:

That consideration of clause 1 be postponed until after consideration of clause 7.

Motion carried.

Clause 2.

Mr PISONI: Premier, this clause refers to the commencement of the act. Are you able to inform the house when the act will actually be proclaimed and the holiday trading hours will be law? What notice can city traders expect of their ability to trade on Easter Sunday and Easter Monday this year? Will you be proclaiming those holidays if this debate is not concluded by that time and, if you are intending to proclaim those holidays, will you proclaim them sooner rather than later?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Can I answer the opposition by saying we could give you certainty tonight if you were to pass this legislation and get your colleagues in the upper house to pass the legislation. We would all know where we stood.

Mr Pisoni: You said you wanted to debate it.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: You can debate it all week and then we could tell them that we are going to pass it. We could do that really quickly, with the cooperation of you and the people in the other place. Obviously, if the passage does occur through both houses, we would like to proclaim this so that it is in place for Easter so that we are in a position to give those businesses certainty about the Easter trading arrangements.

Mr PISONI: Does the Premier feel that it is fair and reasonable to give businesses and their staff less time, at a very significant time of the year, Easter, when we know that many families like to get away—for instance, through the member for Goyder's electorate, a very popular place for fishing on Easter holidays—and often people book accommodation in shacks and that requires quite a bit of notice?

Then, of course, those who are running businesses in the CBD, who may very well like to take advantage of the new trading hours, may very well want to organise a mail-out to their regular customers. They may want to organise special promotions. They may want to organise a number of marketing programs that may, in fact, take quite some time to put into place. Premier, are you comfortable with the fact that your—

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, you have asked one question. The Premier will answer that question; that's a separate question you're putting now.

Mr PISONI: Well, I'm not finished on my feet yet.

The CHAIR: No. Because you can ask 10 questions in a row doesn't make it one question just because you are on your feet. You have asked the question. I have been very lenient, but you have asked the question. The Premier will answer it.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is hoped that the speedy passage of this legislation would end all uncertainty and that is what we are promoting.

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, this is your last question.

Mr PISONI: Premier, you made this decision and this announcement in November. We had two sitting weeks in November. We have had two sitting weeks this year already, we are debating this in the third sitting week and you are saying to the opposition that, if this is not passed immediately, we are to blame for getting in the way of marketing or holiday arrangements of businesses in the CBD. That is reasonable is it? That is the new sort of leadership that you are offering the people of South Australia?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think the member sort of summarised the case pretty accurately really. We are the government. We are trying to act. Those opposite want to prevent us from acting and then they want to blame us for the delay. I do not actually understand the difficulty.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I just get back to the question I asked earlier because I am very keen to get a clear answer from the Premier.

The CHAIR: No, the questions have to relate to the clause before us.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The Premier has just told the house that, this Easter, these arrangements could commence if the bill passes through the house this week. So, I am asking a question about Easter Sunday.

The CHAIR: No, you already have. You can ask that on another clause later. This clause deals specifically with when it will come in by being fixed by proclamation. I think the questions have been asked, unless you can actually rephrase your question. You will get a chance later to ask that same question at a relevant clause.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Do you want a late night, Mr Chair?

The CHAIR: That's okay.

Ms CHAPMAN: In relation to the commencement date, may I just ask you, Premier: assuming for the moment that this is passed this week in this house, when is the earliest you expect that it can go through the upper house and be proclaimed because, in reality, even if that all occurs, we are a matter of days away from Easter? Isn't that the situation? You are in control of this. You are saying you want us all to cooperate. When do you say is the earliest that this could be proclaimed?

The CHAIR: Correct me if I am wrong, but how quickly the government can actually proclaim the bill depends on what the upper house does. I do not think the Premier is actually responsible for the upper house, last time I looked.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, given the circumstance that we have got no idea how quickly this bill could be progressed through both houses, Premier, given that the Chairman has given you the answer that you have got no idea and therefore cannot predict that, don't you think it is reasonable to at least consider, for people's preparation for the Easter period, given the proximity to that, being a matter of weeks away, that the proclamation be made?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We have a simple proposition. We have a piece of legislation before the parliament that we want the parliament to support. That is the simple proposition, and we would ask you to support it. Do not posit a notion that your lack of support, which will cause delay, will then cause some negative consequence. Do not visit that upon me or this government. We are seeking to change the law. Support us in our role of leading this state, but do not be an obstructionist opposition.

Ms CHAPMAN: I would not call the debate here obstructionist but, nevertheless, that is your take on this. We all know that some time this week this bill will pass in this house. Let me put it in the reverse. Given that neither of us have control over how this may progress in the upper house, what is the latest date you will issue a proclamation for the Easter holiday period in the event that there has been no progression of this matter through the upper house?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am confident that this bill will proceed through the upper house in a speedy fashion, and we will proclaim as soon as possible.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The CHAIR: Member for Davenport, I understand that you have two amendments.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I think the procedure we agreed to was that we would ask questions and then come to the amendment.

The CHAIR: No, that was only for the first clause, because we were going to postpone it and give you no chance to introduce other topics. I was being lenient.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Just so that I am clear, if I lose the amendment, I can come back and ask questions on clause 4? How do I ask questions on the original clause 4 before the amendment is debated?

The CHAIR: If your questions are about the clause itself to enable you to debate your amendment, I will allow the questions first.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 4 deals with insertions into the act in relation to part public holidays and it deletes the definition and substitutes another clause in relation to public holidays. It also inserts a new clause in relation to statutory instruments in relation to public holidays under the Holidays Act and talks about part-day public holidays. My question to the Premier is: given that this clause introduces the concept—in the definition phase at least—of part public holidays, is there any agreement with the Rundle Mall authority to ensure that the shops in Rundle Mall stay open later than 5 o'clock on Christmas Eve, or will the shops be closing at 5 o'clock on Christmas Eve and the rest of the state inheriting the part public holiday penalty rates?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There is no intention to oblige the Rundle Mall shops to be open. I think it sort of misses the point a little. There is not a direct quid pro quo between the CBD and the rest of the city. These two pieces of legislation, or these two concepts, have been brought together in a couple of ways, but, most fundamentally, they reflect our judgement about what is an appropriate social norm for working on public holidays. That stands and falls on its own and we independently support it. It also has the great virtue of being able to reach a settlement of a long-standing debate in relation to shop trading hours. The two things are not connected in the way you suggest.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Clause 4(2) deals with the definition of a public holiday. I am going back to my question, to which I hope to get a clear answer, about whether the Premier consulted with heads of churches before making changes to the arrangements for Easter Sunday. Before making this proposal and bringing it to the parliament, did the Premier consult with them formally, and what was the outcome of that consultation?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am in regular discussion with the heads of churches. I know precisely what they feel about Sundays and working on Sundays. These are days of worship. They regard them as days when there should not be work. I am very clear about that, and I do not need an additional consultation to understand that very basic point about faith and its worship in this state.

Mr PISONI: The bill enables any shop in the CBD, as defined by the bill, to trade after midday on public holidays except for Christmas Day, Good Friday and ANZAC Day. Will Rundle Mall traders be able to trade on the public holiday between 5pm and midnight on Christmas Eve and 5pm and midnight on New Years Eve? In other words, will this enable David Jones to open until midnight on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, or will they be prohibited from doing so?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: If they fall on a weekend they close at 5pm, and if they fall on a weekday they can extend to 9pm; so the usual rules apply.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Premier, on what date did you last meet with heads of churches, and at that meeting on that date did you raise this issue with them and gauge their agreement or otherwise with the Easter Sunday proposal?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not think the honourable member understood my previous answer. I am in regular discussion with the heads of churches, and I understand intimately their views about the notion of work on days of worship, whether that be Easter Sunday or any other day. As I said before, we have made decisions about workers and their needs about working on these days and the way in which that interacts with family life. All those views have been taken into account and balanced alongside the views of others who are relaxed about working on those days. Indeed, those in the community who are happy to shop welcome the experience of shopping on those days. All those things have been taken into account to arrive at our decision.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Premier, did your government tell the heads of churches that they would have until 31 March to consult on this issue? In telling them that they would have until 31 March to consult, did you make them aware that in fact you were going to bring this bill before the parliament before that date for a decision?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not know what the member for Waite is talking about.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I might clarify it then, Mr Chair. I have been advised by at least one office of the heads of church that your government told them they would have until 31 March to consult with you on this matter, and we find the matter before us for a decision well before that date. I seek your guidance as to whether your government can corroborate that they were told they would have until 31 March to consult on this matter.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not aware of that. I will ask some questions about it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Will you find out and come back to the house, Premier.

The CHAIR: Any other questions on this clause?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I will move the amendment standing in my name.

The CHAIR: I have been advised that, given your amendment seeks to delete that clause, and you just spoke against it, if it passed those clauses then automatically—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Okay, if that is the advice of the committee.

The CHAIR: That is the advice I have been given by the Clerk. So, the question is that clause 4 as printed be agreed to; if that fails then that achieves your outcome.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Just so the committee is clear, there is an amendment from the opposition in relation to clause 5, it is amendment No. 4 dealing with clause 5. The opposition has a series of amendments which go to one simple principle, that is, the deletion of the provisions that bring in the two extra half-day public holidays. All of the amendments deal with that issue. The substantive amendment comes up in a couple of clauses. So, for the sake of the exercise, I will move amendment No. 4 standing in my name, which effectively deletes clause 5.

The CHAIR: So, based on the advice I received earlier, the question is that clause 5 as printed be agreed to; if that fails that achieves your outcome.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I think I need to move amendment No. 5, which is actually a deletion before clause 6, it deletes the heading before clause 6, which is part 3. So, I will need to move amendment No. 5 standing in my name. It simply deletes the heading which is before clause 6. Or do you wish me to move amendment Nos 5 and 6 together, which deletes the heading and deletes the clause?

The CHAIR: I understand what you are saying. I think the advice is that you can only do 5 if the actual clause itself is deleted.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, do you want me to move that clause 5 be taken into consideration after clause 6?

The CHAIR: With clause 6, if you want to ask questions then ask questions now. If not, then—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I want to move an amendment to clause 6. I do not want the heading to be agreed to until we deal with clause 6.

The CHAIR: No, I accept that. I understand what you are saying.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am happy to ask questions on clause 6 now. Just so the committee is clear, clause 6 deals with the amendment to the Holidays Act. This is the provision that brings in the Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve part public holidays. The clause refers to:

The part of the day from 5pm until 12 o'clock midnight on—

(a) 24 December; and

(b) 31 December,

will be a public holiday (a part-day public holiday).

It is this section that we are seeking to delete in relation to my amendment No. 6. The opposition has made it clear over the course of this debate that we oppose the new public holidays, so there are some questions that I am sure my side will ask the Premier. My question to the Premier is: can he explain to my small businesses in Blackwood that already open on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve during these times and do not have to pay public holiday rates, and have done so for decades, why they now have to pay public holiday rates?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Because we think this is something that deserves to be recognised. We think this is family time, that people should be with their families and friends, and that it is long overdue for this to be recognised in our public holiday system. In fact, it gives people the right not to work on these evenings and also to get higher rates of pay, and we think that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the community. It also provides a means by which the working people, who are also substantially affected by this change, are able to come to the view that they would be prepared to support something they perhaps would prefer otherwise not to support, and that is the liberalisation of shop trading hours in the CBD.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Can the Premier advise the committee what are the circumstances in the retail industry, for instance, when the Rundle Mall is open a couple of days before Christmas for 24-hour trading, which obviously impacts families? What rate is then paid to the retail worker during those hours, and will it be different from the public holiday rate proposed under this provision and, if so, why?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It would be administered or governed by the relevant industrial award, which would provide for penalties after a certain number of hours at times of the day which attracted certain penalties. So, that would be the relevant instrument that would determine what those rates of pay would be.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Premier, why is it the government's position that retail workers can be involved in a 24-hour retail operation a couple of days before Christmas and the rate of pay is set by the award but for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve the pay rate is going to be set by an act of parliament? Why the different policy? With retail shops open 24 hours, the impact of a retail worker working at 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock, 1am, 2am or 3am is probably more significant to that individual than it is to the retail worker working at 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock on Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve, so why the different policy position? Why treat that differently?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Basically, there has always been a holidays act since 1910 and probably before that. Certainly, there has always been an acceptance that the community will declare certain days a public holiday for certain purposes, and they will always have an interaction with the industrial awards, as they always have. The industrial awards are predicated on a series of state holiday acts that then apply certain penalties. Of course, they give rights beyond remuneration; they give rights to refuse work—and, of course, they are based on the fact that these are special days the community has decided to declare for certain purposes, some religious, some social. So, it is essentially a cultural norm which this community expresses which has an interaction with the industrial relations legislation.

Mr PISONI: Premier, are you able to inform the committee which unions have made submissions in recent times—say, in the last five or six years—to the Industrial Relations Commission for penalty rates to be paid at 250 per cent on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not have those records with me, but I can certainly say that the industrial relations system, at least over the last decade, has been mostly predicated on enterprise bargaining rather than on general award movements by application. I know that it has been a matter of regular agitation by the Police Association, in particular, on behalf of its members, about the arrangements for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve and the rates of remuneration. So, the Police Association certainly has agitated the point.

In relation to the extent that the various unions have been successful in agitating their concerns, I know the shop assistants union has agitated its concerns with its retail employers without success. But this is a different mechanism. This is the community saying that this is a social norm that should be recognised by a public holiday. As I have said before, this is not without precedent. There are countries and states in the United States that have this mechanism. Indeed, in the various Australian states and territories, there are states and territories with superior public holiday arrangements. So, it is not without precedent.

Mr PISONI: Premier, you said you could not at this time provide those details. Are you able to bring them to the parliament and advise the parliament which unions have in fact asked for those provisions? Can you also advise whether this government has opposed in the Industrial Relations Commission those types of penalty payments for public servants, whether they be police or others, who have asked for such conditions in their enterprise bargaining agreements?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not have access to the applications that have been made by trade unions. They are independent bodies; they make their own applications in respect of their own awards. I do not have them, and to the extent—

Mr Pisoni: They're public documents.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, if they are public documents, then you go and find them. In relation to the previous position of this government, I am happy to tell you what the position is under the government I lead, and that is that we are proposing two new part-day public holidays, and I am proud of it.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have some questions as to the cost to the state government of the public holidays, Premier. In a recent press article in The Advertiser, I think by Ms Novak, she quoted a $5 million figure. It has been repeated in some correspondence as approximately $5 million. Has that been assessed by the government and, if so, what is the figure?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think that figure is accurate. It is my recollection, at least, of the figure, and I think it is an estimate that has been provisioned for. I think it was announced by the Treasurer in his updated budget statement, which took account of the decisions that had occurred since the change of leadership, and savings were found to offset those. That was certainly part of that statement that was made, so that is the nature of the assessment.

Ms CHAPMAN: Does the $5 million include provision by the state government for the payment of services indirectly? For example, I think you have been asked some questions about NGOs and the like, but there is also of course a very significant cost to the commonwealth government for the provision of aged-care services and the like. Does that cover the commonwealth costs, that being one very significant area of cost?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, it does not cover the commonwealth costs. In respect of the earlier part of your question, I undertook to take on notice the elements of the cost that were covered in respect of the non-government organisations in answer to a question that was asked by one of your colleagues.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Premier, I am interested in the impost on private enterprise. Has there been any modelling that has actually looked at what the collective costs will be for those businesses that employ staff operating between those times either by Treasury or even by Business SA as part of their agreement to this in proposing it to you? Did they present to you any figures on what the estimate will be?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, there has not been that precise work done but, remember, we are talking about 14 hours in 8,760 for a relatively small proportion of the economy. The overwhelming number of businesses do not trade on those evenings and, for those that do, we are talking about 14 hours in the total number of hours within the year. The businesses or the enterprises or at least the concerns that operate on those evenings are often government enterprises, so the large burden of adjustment will of course fall on government, and we have made the appropriate provision.

Mr GRIFFITHS: To clarify that, many of the concerns have been about businesses that operate in the extremities of South Australia, so there will be a significant impact upon businesses. To confirm: there are no Treasury modellings or no estimates at all on what our costs might be? You say that physically it is 14 hours, but with the double time and a half provisions it becomes 35 hours, or the equivalent of a week's work for two part-days. A week's work is therefore 2 per cent of a wage cost for a whole year. So, when you consider what the wage implications are over the whole year for private enterprise, yes it is a smaller number than those that would operate every day, but there has to be a cost implication on which surely cabinet and Treasury have provided information.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: As I said before, we made the estimates of the things that were within our capacity and control, which is those government workers who are the overwhelming majority of the people who we are working on that evening. That is the basis on which cabinet made its consideration. Of course, in any government decision or cabinet process we always have a business impact statement, which is given consideration as part of the budget deliberations.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Premier, where a worker is rostered normally in the time slot 5pm to midnight, let us say a nurse or an aged-care worker—someone along those lines—and it is normal for them to work in that time slot, and it happens to be one of these two days—Christmas Eve or New Year's Eve and a weekday or whatever—and that worker calls in sick or takes leave for that day, will they be paid for that day's sick leave at the penalty rate applied, and will the employer then face the dilemma of having to pay the worker on leave or sick at the penalty rate, as well as the replacement worker who he or she must bring in to replace the worker who is on sick leave or annual leave for that day, and therefore suffer a double whammy effect in terms of his wages bill?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This would be dictated by the relevant industrial agreement or award. I have never seen one in all my years of practice which provided for the penalty rate to be paid for somebody who was on sick leave.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Premier, if this is mandated by law as a public holiday, surely the relevant award would specify that the penalty rate would be applied. For employers who have a significant number of employees—if you have, say, 100 employees—you may well have sicknesses and leave absences on these days and have to double up. Surely, because it is a change through an act, the employer would be mandated to pay the penalty rate. Is that not your understanding?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, it is dictated by the relevant award or industrial agreement. Generally speaking—there might be exceptions—if you have sick leave you are not paid at the penalty rates; you are paid at the ordinary rate of pay.

Ms CHAPMAN: I understand from what you said, Premier, that a business impact statement has been done and, if it has, can that be made available to the parliament? While you are considering those things, it may be different under your government, but there was a policy to have a regional impact statement done for matters to be determined by the cabinet. Has that been done and, if so, will you make that available?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I thank the honourable member. These are all matters of cabinet consideration. Can I say about all these matters that there has not been one question asked about the effect on working people and the impact it will have on those people. I know that there are those who are obsessed. I know that it is hurting a little bit that this actually has about an 80 per cent approval rate in the community. We are happy to talk about it all day and all night.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: You will get a chance to seek further clarification.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We have made a balanced assessment about what we think is in the broader interests of the business community and also the working people of South Australia. We have been informed, in relation to business interests, by Business SA. We have been guided by Business SA about the impact of these changes on the business community and we thought it was appropriate to rely upon the advice of Business SA.

In fact, I think there are quite a few pieces of legislation that require us to take into account Business SA's perspective on the question of the effect of legislation on the interests of business people, and I think we were within our rights to do that. However, of course, we did not solely rely upon its judgement; we exercised our own independent judgement in the cabinet deliberation process.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Premier, I—

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, is this supplementary?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, it's a second question.

The CHAIR: No, it's your third. You have already asked three according to the Clerk.

Ms CHAPMAN: Premier, I understood—

Mrs Geraghty: You've asked three.

Ms CHAPMAN: I get three, member for Torrens. You have been here long enough to know I get three.

The CHAIR: Which I have granted you.

Ms CHAPMAN: This is my third.

The CHAIR: No, you have had three already. According to the Clerk you have had three questions.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, not on this clause. I am only starting. I was warming up on this clause.

The CHAIR: According to the Clerk, on this point you have had three; according to his record. However, I will allow this question.

Ms CHAPMAN: I seek your clarification. I understood from the Premier's earlier statement that he said that a business impact statement had been done. He is quite within his rights to say to the parliament, 'You are not going to look at it; I'm going to keep it under wraps. I've consulted all these other people and Business SA'—and whoever he wants to consult, and that is fine. However, he made a statement to this parliament that he had done one. My simple question to him was: have you done a regional impact statement? Then we got some other waffle about what he has done or not done and what he is not going to show us.

I think this parliament is entitled to know, in the directions of this government, if it is actually complying with its own direction, and that is that they conduct these assessments for the purposes of relying on it when they make those decisions. That is all I am asking. Peter Blacker probably knows nothing about it because he has probably never seen a regional impact statement.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Of course, the effect on business is broader than just the effect on each individual business. The whole business environment that is created in the state through what has been, up until this point if this legislation passes, one of the most restrictive shop trading regimes in the country will be an important business reform.

The Productivity Commission has been calling for us to make these reforms. It has been probably called upon by the Competitiveness Council and other commonwealth institutions. So I think in terms of the business impact, the net benefit would be a very positive one. These are the sort of judgements that are made by Business SA when it reaches agreement about these things.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just tell the truth, Jay; you haven't even done one.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: These are appended to cabinet documents. They are not ones that we traditionally release to the—

Ms CHAPMAN: You said you had done it and you haven't done it.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am actually looking at it.

Ms CHAPMAN: If you are looking at it and reading from it, I ask you to table it.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is attached to—

Ms CHAPMAN: I ask you, Mr Chair, to require him to table that document. He says he has got it in front of him and he is reading from it. That's what he said.

Members interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Point of order, Mr Chair.

The CHAIR: And your point of order is?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Previous Speakers have ruled very clearly, based on existing standing orders in Erskine May, that if a minister refers to a document in the house it must be tabled for the house to see. I know that speaker Lewis, speaker Oswald and speaker Such all made rulings on this matter. The Premier has referred to the document and he said he is looking at it. As a matter of order—and this may require us to call the Speaker to the chair, unless you rule accordingly—I ask that you direct the minister to table the document to which he has drawn the house's attention.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Would all members please keep quiet. I will seek clarification from the Premier. Premier, did you quote from the relevant document?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No.

The CHAIR: I have sought clarification from the Premier, and he has now put that response on the record. I am satisfied with that response. There is no point of order.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order. I request that you look at the Hansard record overnight to see if the Premier indicated to the house prior to your question that he was reading it and then come back with a ruling tomorrow. I am asking you to have a look at the Hansard record.

The CHAIR: I am happy to look at the Hansard overnight. That was my understanding.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order. The minister has suggested that I scratch my belly and roll over. I think that might be unparliamentary. I ask the minister to withdraw because the Premier says we have to set new parliamentary standards, and I think the minister just crawled under them.

The CHAIR: Has the member for Norwood actually complied with that request at any time? No. I am advised that the comment is not unparliamentary. However, if the member is offended by the comment, and if the minister wishes to withdraw it, you can do so.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Davenport, take your seat. Minister, do you wish to withdraw the comment?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order. Normally, if a member is offended the member asks for it to be withdrawn. You have ruled it is not unparliamentary. I have said I am not offended. There is no need for the minister to withdraw it. I am happy for it to be on the record.

Mr WILLIAMS: Some minutes ago the member for Bragg asked the Premier whether the $5 million cost of this measure to government covered the cost of aged-care beds funded by the commonwealth, and my question goes to that particular matter.

For the benefit of the house, it is very common in rural communities for aged-care facilities to be provided by the local hospital, and those facilities have now been taken over and are managed by Country Health SA. They were established and run by country hospital boards, but this government chose to get rid of those, and the administration of those aged-care facilities associated with our country hospitals are now administered by Country Health SA. However, in a number of communities the alternative is that the aged-care facilities are run by a community board/trust for the benefit of the community. So the delivery of aged-care services in country and regional South Australia is quite different from that in metropolitan South Australia. It is not generally delivered by a private profit-making organisation.

I think the answer to the previous question from the member for Bragg was that the cost to the state did not include cost to the commonwealth. Does the Premier envisage that the commonwealth will pick up the extra costs of running commonwealth aged-care beds in these community based facilities or hospitals that are run by Country Health SA in country and regional towns?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That will be a matter for the commonwealth. I am advised by representatives of the aged-care sector that they have much more significant issues to raise with the commonwealth in terms of cost pressures than the public holiday issues. This is a very small and relatively negligible component of the sorts of cost pressures that they are seeking to raise with the commonwealth in relation to their aged-care bed licences. That is certainly the perspective that has been put to me by the aged-care sector; but that will be a matter for the commonwealth.

Mr WILLIAMS: Premier, are you telling the house that you have not consulted your colleagues in the commonwealth government on this particular issue and the cost pressures that may befall such aged-care facilities? Are you also informing the house that you have been informed by the aged-care sector that this is not a significant cost and that they are not concerned about the impost at all? If that is the case, do you have anything in writing to substantiate those statements?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In relation to that last point, I have had discussions with representatives from the aged-care sector that this represents a relatively minor proportion of the cost pressures they are facing that they seek to raise with the commonwealth. That is the nature of the communication I have had there.

Regarding the commonwealth's position in relation to this bill, they support it. The commonwealth government's position is that they support this bill, cognisant no doubt of the potential cost pressures that it would impose on not only commonwealth public servants but the broader spectrum of their funding requirements.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Will contracts for bus services or Allwater contracts be adjusted to build in the extra costs that are being imposed on them by these half holidays? We have seen fines for bus companies. Will we now see some extra incentives given to them?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That will largely depend on the nature of the contract and its relationship with the various industrial instruments that govern their conditions of employment. Once again, to remind us here, we are talking about 14 hours in 365 days. It is a very important issue for those workers, but a relatively minor cost impact on the enterprises that do operate on those occasions, which is generally speaking a very small proportion of their total workforce on a very limited number of days in the year.

Mr PISONI: Obviously there is the extra pay, but I certainly got the impression from Mr Malinauskas, who is a key broker in this deal, that one of the selling points that he has been using for workers about the introduction of the public holidays is that it would give workers the choice not to work on those public holidays, as you have described, on those very special times of the year. There will be no compulsion to work.

Will bus drivers who are generally rostered on permanent afternoon shift or some other time, or on a rotating shift, and who, for argument's sake, would be working on, for example, New Year's Eve or Christmas Eve on a Thursday, be able to tell their boss that they do not want to work on that day? Also, what provisions does the government have in place if people working in our public hospitals decide that it is a very special day for them and they do not want to work?

Can you guarantee to the committee that there will not be a reduction in staff and services in our hospitals because people will not be compelled to work if they do not wish to on the two busiest nights, particularly in emergency in our hospitals and also on the two busiest nights for public transport?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: This difficulty has not arisen in the past in being able to get sufficient workers to provide services on these evenings, and we do not anticipate that this will be a problem in the future. What it does mean is that those people who are working on those evenings obviously get remunerated for the disability of having to work while others are enjoying themselves.


[Sitting extended beyond 22:00 on motion of Hon. J.W. Weatherill]


Mr MARSHALL: My question is to the Premier. The Premier has repeatedly tonight indicated to the committee that the government has relied on the advice of Business SA to provide input to this process and to represent the business interests, if you like, in this process. Can the Premier outline any specific consultation that Business SA did with the small business sector in regional and rural South Australia?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is really a matter for Business SA, I think, to answer that question.

Mr MARSHALL: Just for clarity, because Business SA is not here, is the Premier saying that he is completely unaware of any consultation that Business SA—the group that he is relying on to provide business impact analysis for the government on this—did with the small business sector in regional and rural South Australia?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No. I am simply saying that if you have any questions to direct to Business SA you should direct them to Business SA and not to me. We have taken into account the advice of Business SA and we have made our own independent assessments. I suppose, a very fundamental consideration for us was that we do not believe that workers in rural or regional South Australia should be treated any less favourably than workers in metropolitan South Australia.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Following the Premier's answer to that question: why then does the government policy allow retail trading hours to be fully deregulated in regional areas—which obviously has an impact on the staff—and in the city, it is in restricted areas, which has a lesser impact on staff? Given you have just told the house you do not thing regional employees should be treated any differently, why, under the retail trading act, are they?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is a cute debating point, Mr Chair.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Mr Chair, the proposition of those opposite is that somehow regional businesses should be given some separate consideration from other businesses. That has been the burden of the point they have been raising. What I have been saying, making the corresponding point, is that we do not think regional employees should be treated any less favourably for the purposes of this legislation. Now, I have expressed it in a shorthand way, and the member decided he would make a cheap debating point about it, but that is what I meant; that is obviously the context in which I made the remark.

Mr BROCK: Premier, the member for Davenport has just asked a question regarding regional South Australia and how they have already been deregulated. Can you explain to me how I go back to my businesses and say that they are going to continue trading at their current hours, and they are now going to have to pay another 250 per cent—or whatever the percentage is? Can you tell me how I am going to justify that to the business community of Port Pirie?

In addition to that, Premier, in case you did not hear my speech, I said the regional small businesses are really, really struggling. Even though you say this is only 14 hours out of 8,000, it will still be an impost on those businesses.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There is no doubt that it will be an impost on those businesses, but it will not have a devastating impact.

Ms Chapman: How do you know?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is exaggerated—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is—because of the nature of—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, I set one up; I actually set one up from scratch. Unlike—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —many of you here who have run a few into the wall, and many of you who have just inherited something from mummy or daddy, I actually set one up from scratch, so don't talk to me about business.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Now—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I'm enjoying this.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Mr Chair—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I think that hurt, Jay; I think you hurt their feelings.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That's right.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I think you hurt Iain's feelings.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That's right. Mr Chair, can I answer the member for Frome's question? The first thing I think you should do is speak to the workers of Port Pirie and explain to them what this bill means to them; that is, that they will be recognised for their work on those evenings, and many of them are affected—and positively affected—by this legislation. The truth is that the pattern of deregulation in this state has been pragmatic; it has responded to the local circumstances that exist.

In the town that you obviously represent, in the Port Pirie area, a decision was made in the past in the best interest of that community to have a deregulated shopping environment. There have been different judgements made about the city, and we think we are making a further important, pragmatic change which will have benefits well beyond just the interests of the CBD.

I know that it is not a popular thing for regional members to hear, but the truth is that the success of the city is intimately related to the success of our state. Many of the important transactions—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No, this is the truth of the matter. The success of our state is intimately related to the vibrancy of our city and this, I believe, is an important reform that drives our state forward. There is a great reputational risk to our city and our state by having the appellation of being a closed state, and so that is why we are introducing this reform, a reform that those opposite could not achieve when they were in government. We are going to achieve this reform in the life of this government through making sensible compromises where business and worker interests are brought together in the broader public interest.

There will be some burden on some small businesses, but it will be modest and, in my view, is overweighed by the broader public interest in having a vibrant open city, and once and for all settling the shop trading hours debate. We need to remember what is at stake here. What is at stake is that if those opposite get their way we will have a totally deregulated environment across the whole of the metropolitan sector.

Ms Chapman: That is rubbish; you are not even reading the amendment right.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, it is in your party policy.

Ms Chapman: Don't mislead the house, Jay.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Premier, either in this place or the other place, should this provision for two extra public holidays on 24 December and 31 December be struck out, will you be continuing with the remainder of the measure or will you be pulling the bill?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It's my intention to promote the bill in its current form. That is the legislation we are putting before the parliament. We are not putting before the parliament any alternative measures.

The CHAIR: Is this a supplementary, member for Waite?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I have only asked one.

The CHAIR: Not on this clause, you haven't, according to the Clerk. According to the Clerk you have actually asked four already on this clause. If it is a supplementary I am happy to—

Members interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: It was really an associated question.

Ms Chapman: Supplementary.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Call it a supplementary, if you like—a follow-on—I am sure the Premier is up to answering whatever comes his way. If your proposition in regard to 24 and 31 December is amended in the other place by the honourable—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, an Independent member, to reduce it from six hours to three hours, do you see that as a fall-back position?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That sounds like the same question asked in a slightly different way. Can I say we want the legislation we have brought to the parliament. The government has made a decision; it is not my decision. The government has made a decision. We have got legislation before the house. We are trying to persuade this chamber and once we have persuaded this chamber, hopefully, we will then try to persuade the next chamber that this is the correct model.

The CHAIR: Unless there are any questions on this clause by members who have not asked three questions I am going to put the question that the clause be agreed to and if it fails—

Ms CHAPMAN: No; the amendment has to be put first.

The CHAIR: No. I have been advised by the Clerk that, essentially, it is like the previous two. Your clause is to strike all of it out by putting the actual motion itself or the clause itself. You vote it down and that is how you strike it out.

The committee divided on the clause:

AYES (23)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bettison. Z.L.
Bignell, L.W. Breuer, L.R. Caica, P.
Close, S.E. Conlon, P.F. Fox, C.C.
Geraghty, R.K. Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W.
Koutsantonis, A. O'Brien, M.F. Portolesi, G.
Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R. Sibbons, A.L.
Snelling, J.J. Thompson, M.G. Vlahos, L.A.
Weatherill, J.W. (teller) Wright, M.J.
NOES (18)
Brock, G.G. Chapman, V.A. Evans, I.F. (teller)
Gardner, J.A.W. Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P.
Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Marshall, S.S. McFetridge, D.
Pederick, A.S. Pegler, D.W. Pengilly, M.
Pisoni, D.G. Sanderson, R. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Williams, M.R.
PAIRS (4)
Hill, J.D. Venning, I.H.
Odenwalder, L.K. Redmond, I.M.


Majority of 5 for the ayes.

Clause thus passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I have no questions on clause 7, although I am not sure whether my colleagues do. There is an amendment to this clause standing in my name, but I advise the committee (and it will be very sad to hear this) that the rest of my amendments deal with the same issue we have just voted on, so I do not intend to proceed with any further amendments standing in my name.

Ms CHAPMAN: I seek some clarification on clause 7, which is to amend section 7 of the act by adding an extra provision. This is the section of the act which identifies the payments in other acts on holidays and Saturdays and, in particular, says you cannot be forced to work on these days (which I think there has been some questioning on) and, secondly, currently makes provision for the entitlements to be on the following day if they fall on Saturdays and Sundays, etc. This extra provision, subparagraph (3) that is to be added, says:

A reference in this section to a public holiday does not include a part-day public holiday.

So my question is this: what is the situation to apply in the event that it falls on a Saturday or Sunday under subsection (2) of the act?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I need to ask clarification of the member. What does not apply?

Ms CHAPMAN: Subparagraph (2) says:

When, except for the provisions of this section, a person would be obliged to make a payment or do an act on a public holiday, bank holiday or Saturday, the obligation applies to the next day following that is not a public holiday, bank holiday or Saturday, and payment or performance on that day will be due payment of the money or performance of the act, but nothing in this Act exempts a person from making a payment or doing an act on a public holiday, bank holiday or Saturday that the person is by law specially required to make or do on that day.

That is the sort of general provision. We are adding a clause which says that part days do not count. Can you explain how that is going to work?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think this is a provision which talks about the sort of days upon which a set of obligations falls due for the payment of debts or for the purposes of certain acts such as the banking act and that certain things ought to happen. The days that are exempted for those purposes, at present, are Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. This provision provides that this part-day public holiday is not a public holiday for those purposes. Given that it starts at 5pm, it will not attract that relevant exemption, if you like.

Indeed, Saturdays and Sundays are not otherwise compellable for those purposes, in any event, so it would not matter that the next day was a Saturday or Sunday. Essentially, if you are given a certain number of days to pay a debt, or any other obligation, certain days are counted to be the next relevant day to make a payment and it will not be counted as exempting you in a way that an existing public holiday is.

Clause passed.

Clause 1 passed.

Clauses 8 and 9 passed.

Clause 10.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I just refer the Premier back to his earlier answers to my questions in regard to Easter Sunday and the process that was taken or not taken to consult with the heads of churches. Given that the Premier has not given us a date when he last met with the heads of churches and has not clearly indicated that he has met with them specifically to discuss this issue—I think that is correct, Premier—could he now tell me whether, in the last 24 hours, he has directed his office to contact the heads of churches to put together a short-notice meeting with them next week? If he has, on what day next week has he scheduled that meeting with the heads of churches and what is the purpose of that meeting?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I have given no such direction.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Let me be specific. Has anyone in the government arranged a meeting with heads of churches for next week at which it is intended to discuss this issue? Mr Chair, I consider that to be the one question. Who will be attending that meeting on behalf of the government?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Look, I do not know what other people have done about meeting with the heads of churches. It would be orthodox for us to meet from time to time with the heads of churches. It may be about this bill, if such a meeting has been arranged.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I don't know.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I do not know, and I do not know whether other members of the government have and, if they do, I am sure it is an appropriate thing for them to do.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: So, is the Premier saying that he has no plans and is not aware of any arrangements, either by him or anyone else in the government, to meet with heads of churches next week? Is that what he is saying? He is denying any knowledge of any meeting of any kind between his government and the heads of churches next week to discuss this issue. Is that correct?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I am not aware of it, but—

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: You are aware of it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I said I am not aware of it. Look, you are really excited about this, but it may well be that the—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Are you meeting with the Scientologists next week?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That's right. Given that you seem quite certain that you know something that I do not know, it could well be the case that somebody in government has arranged to meet with the heads of churches about this matter. I do not know if they have, and I think that it is a pretty reasonable thing to do, if they have concerns.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Again to the Premier: you are not planning to meet with them next week. Is that correct, or you will not be meeting with them?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not planning to, but the only caveat I will put on that is that I am not entirely sure of what goes into my diary at any one point in time, so it could very well be that somebody else is planning for me to meet with them.

Mr MARSHALL: My question is also on the Easter Day inclusion. Can the Premier advise who came up with the suggestion that Easter Day be included as a day for trading in this proposed bill? Was it the SDA, was it Business SA or was it, indeed, the government?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We take ownership of the decision we take. I think it does also reflect the substance of agreement between Business SA and the shop distributive union, but we take ownership of the decision to open up public holidays of shopping on this day in the CBD.

Mr MARSHALL: Can the Premier advise why he has a differential starting time between Easter Day and Good Friday and, indeed, ANZAC Day, and the reasons for that differential?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: It is consistent with all of the hours for Sunday trading, which is 11am until 5pm. I think that is to make some accommodation for the hours of worship, obviously in the early part of Sunday. We discussed before the significance of Good Friday, being the holiest of days. There is no doubt that that was influential in the minds of people who had given consideration to completely excluding that as a day of trading.

Mr PISONI: Premier, are you able to define the physical locality or the physical boundary of the area of the CBD to which this clause relates for a description in Hansard?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: In the definition section it is described as the Hundred of Adelaide. If the honourable member is interested, I have a pictorial representation of that. I am happy to table it if he would like to see what it actually comprises.

Mr PISONI: Can I move that it be inserted in Hansard?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: We will find a way of showing that to the honourable member.

The CHAIR: My understanding is that it can be tabled but not inserted in Hansard because it is not an actual graph or a statistical table as such.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (22:29): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I would like to thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate and also those officers who assisted me in the debate and in the preparation of the bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (22:30): I understand that I can contribute to the third reading. I just want to make a comment with regard to the bill, that is, we learned something tonight about the Premier. The Premier made great play about announce and defend in some previous comments that were well known publicly. Of course, tonight we find out that that relates to 'executive decisions only'. What we have here is a piece of legislation, and by the Premier's own admission—

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: This isn't a debating chamber.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The parliament is a debating chamber; it is not a consulting chamber, Premier, and I will get that on the record. The Premier interjected that the parliament is not a debating chamber. Of course it is; but, you see, the Motor Trades Association, the hotel industry, aged care, the disability sector, restaurants and catering, the transport industry, all of those groups would like to have been consulted and are not on the floor of the house being consulted tonight. We are trying to represent their view as best we can, but they are not on the floor of the house being consulted.

It is an interesting point to note that under this Premier the way the consultation is going to work is that he is going to take the thing to cabinet, whack it into the parliament, and say 'We are now consulting,' then essentially ignore the consultation and try to put it through. This is in relation to the Premier's own bill, which this one is. Why undertake a different consultation process with this bill, if there was a consultation process at all, and clearly there has not been outside of business and the union movement generally—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Well, there are plenty of small business organisations that feel they were not consulted. Take a look at that consultation process and compare it to what they have done with other bills, for example, the Treasurer's bill on the changes to the motor accident scheme, bringing in a no fault motor accident insurance scheme. Put out a discussion paper with six or seven months consultation and it comes through, and everyone has a chance to have a say. Not this Premier.

It is interesting that this Premier was quick on the uptake to go out and belt the former premier and deputy premier in the nose about the idea that we need a change of style. However, we have noticed something about the debate about this Premier. The change of style is simply not there. It might be quieter, but the style is the same: make the decision in cabinet, do the deal, and everyone else can just suffer the consequences of it. That is the message out of this bill.

The other issue is that the Premier often makes comments that need to be corrected, and I will correct one now for the Premier. I took a point of order at the time. The habit of this Premier is to say things that are not necessarily as accurate as they could be. The example is that the Premier says the opposition never asked a question about the workers.

The Hansard will show that I had only just finished (I think, two questions before) questioning the Premier about the impact on workers who work in the 24-hour retail cycle earlier than Christmas Eve. I asked about the impact of that. I just finished asking, and the Premier stands up and says, 'The opposition never asked me a question about workers.' It is just an example, and that is why I took a point of order.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No; the Premier thinks it's funny, and that's fine. I will keep correcting him because I think what your colleagues say about you is true. I will keep asking questions and making the point to the Premier. The reality is that we will continue to fight this matter in the upper house and, hopefully, the upper house will make a different decision than this one.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (22:34): In wrapping up the debate over the last few days in this chamber, I think it is clear that one of the things that the Premier has been successful at doing is dividing the business community in South Australia. Nothing was more compelling than the debate we saw in Rundle Mall between Theo Maris and John Chapman on Monday afternoon about the proclaimed trading day in the mall for the Adelaide Cup. There is no doubt, despite what this Premier, as education minister, told the pagans of Semaphore, that he wanted to change the style of this government. Double page spread in the weekend magazine, Premier; a great read, the pagans of Semaphore. The pagans of Semaphore, is that one of those religious groups you have been consulting over this bill? I just wonder if they were.

So, we have seen the Premier's first major act as a division of the business community in South Australia. Of course, there could be no worse time to be causing divisions in the business community. Despite the fact that during the election climate this government promised to deliver 100,000 new jobs, not a single full-time job has been created in the two years since that promise was made. When Labor made that promise before the last election nobody would have thought it was only talking about part-time jobs, and even then only 13,000 part-time jobs, nearly 18,000 short of its target of 100,000, one third of the way in (two years in).

We need a government that has business interests and community interests, a government that does in fact consult, not one that says it is going to consult, but one that does general consultation. You can understand why the Premier thinks that consulting Business SA or doing a deal with Business SA must include everybody, because they think that what the unions say represents everybody. The unions only represent 17 per cent of workers in the private sector, but of course, as a political party, they will do what the unions tell them.

Then there is the argument the Premier gives that this will stop the debate about trading in Adelaide for all time. Do you remember the three mines policy? That was going to fix the Labor Party's debate over uranium for all time. No selling of uranium to India, that was another one that was going to fix the uranium debate in the Labor Party for all time. Then, of course, we remember the historic River Murray agreement of several years ago that was going to fix the Murray for all time, but now we have a Premier who is going to take the Eastern States to the courts.

You cannot believe what this Premier says. Look at his record on the way this bill has been handled; his lack of consultation with the people who actually generate the wealth in this state, the people who employ. The vast majority of people who are employed in South Australia are employed in the small business sector. I can only express how supportive we are of the revitalisation of the city. After all, it was our plan to bring football to the city when this government said, 'No; West Lakes is the home of football in South Australia.' We all remember that: 'West Lakes is the home of football in South Australia.' After arguing that footy should stay at West Lakes, with a $100 million grant, after six months they realised they were not going to win that battle and followed the Liberal Party to take football to the city. We support a revitalisation of Adelaide but we do not support an unfair burden, a bypassing of the Industrial Relations Commission through use of the Public Holiday Act.

I hear the Premier saying that workers deserve to be paid these penalty rates. Janet Giles says workers deserve to be paid these penalty rates. We hear Peter Malinauskas saying that workers deserve to receive these penalty rates. I say to Janet Giles and Peter Malinauskas: start your own business. Pay workers as much as you like. I will be right behind you if you pay workers as much as you like. I do not have any problem with that at all. What I do take offence to is people who have no experience of running a business, bypassing a legitimate system that has worked in this country for 100 years in negotiating fair and proper wage regimes, using another act of parliament in order to impose an unfair burden on small businesses in South Australia.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Minister for State Development) (22:40): Deputy Speaker, all eyes are now on the Liberal Party, whether they are prepared to support the revitalisation of our city and to permit workers who want to choose to spend time with their families and friends on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve or, if they have to work, receive a higher rate of pay for working on those evenings. That is the proposition.

We now expect that this bill, with the support of the house, will now go to the other place. All eyes are on the Liberal Party about whether they are going to block higher rates of pay for those workers who have to work on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, when the rest of us are enjoying ourselves, when many people are seeking to enjoy time with family and friends, and when others are wanting to celebrate religious ceremonies. That is the simple proposition that is before the house, and all eyes are on the Liberal Party about whether they are prepared to support this measure.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT