HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-10-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Holidays (Christmas Day) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (10:33): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Holidays Act 1910. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (10:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This period of the calendar year is usually a time when we look forward to the festive season. We look forward to the festive season based around that traditional Christian religious holiday of Christmas. It has been a time that our community has looked forward to celebrating with family, with friends, with loved ones, when we know we will have some time away from our usual daily commitments to spend with those who are most important to us in our lives.

Of course, this is also usually the time when towards the end of October some of us think that we have at least two clear months to start worrying about Christmas shopping, and that enables us to leave it to the last moment. Nonetheless, it is a time when all of us should have the comfort of knowing that we will have a break from our normal commitments.

That is a bit different this year because we have the unusual circumstance—not unprecedented but unusual—where the actual Christmas Day falls on Saturday. It means that the normal benefit that would accrue to most South Australians of having a public holiday on Christmas Day when we can be free from going to work or, for those who still need to go to work, being entitled to receive appropriate rewards in the form of penalty rates, etc., necessarily will not translate. It is this anomaly which has been the focus of a growing industrial campaign from a lot of employee representatives in our community, particularly those who are required to work despite it being either Christmas Day or a day close to Christmas.

If Christmas Day will not attract a usual public holiday because it happens to fall on a Saturday, then of course the appropriate thing would be to declare it a public holiday day as it is, in fact, a public holiday—to declare the Saturday a public holiday. Par for the course, you would think—makes sense. Everybody can see the logic in that. Everybody can see the reasonableness and the fairness in that, but that is not the approach the Marshall Liberal government is taking.

The Marshall Liberal government is taking the approach that you would expect from the Liberal Party of South Australia; that is, to prioritise the financial returns of the employers against the reasonable benefits of employees. It is, of course, entirely reasonable that employers who must engage staff in order to operate on a Christmas Day public holiday should pay appropriate penalty rates, whether that happens to fall on exactly the 25th or on the next logical day for that public holiday which, in the context of this year, happens to be the Monday the 27th. But that is not the approach here.

Of course, it is par for the course for the current Minister for Industrial Relations, the Treasurer in the other place, Rob Lucas, and it is par for the course from the current Premier, the member for Dunstan, to seek to make sure that those workers who are required to work on these sorts of days do not get the benefit of penalty rates. We have seen the approach they have taken with attempting to deregulate shop trading hours, and now they take this same sort of scorched earth approach to one of the most sacred times of the year.

Well, that is outrageous. Whether they are hospital workers, whether they are public transport workers, whether they are retail workers, whether they are workers in other industries that must operate on a Christmas Day public holiday, they deserve the appropriate penalty rates. Why would we not give that to them? The community agrees with the plight of these workers. The only people who seem to disagree are those elected members of parliament who identify as members of the Liberal Party of South Australia—the dwindling number that it seems to be. It is an extraordinary situation where those opposite feel that workers should not be entitled to those penalty rates at Christmas time.

Do we expect those opposite to be working on those days? Well, the vast majority of them will not be; that is true. They will be taking the opportunity to put their feet up and enjoy time away from work or enjoy time with those most important to them. They will be getting the benefit of the festive season that the rest of the community would normally expect, but they will not be providing a reasonable and appropriate additional benefit, a recognition of what it means to have to work on a public holiday in the festive period.

That is why this bill is entirely appropriate and necessary for the parliament to support: a small change to fix up this anomaly of how our calendar falls in this particular year, and that is when Christmas Day falls on a Saturday it should be a public holiday so that workers working on that day, in those relevant industries, attract the appropriate penalty rates. It is fair and reasonable.

For those opposite to maintain the position that those workers who have to work on that day do not deserve penalty rates is absolutely outrageous, and the people in their communities know exactly what they stand for when they oppose this measure. The comeback from those opposite is that 11 years ago the calendar happened to fall in a similar way and nothing was done by a former state government then. That is because at that time there were the appropriate awards and regimes in place to ensure that those workers were appropriately compensated.

The member for Chaffey is fired up about this, of course. He loves looking people in the eye in his community of Chaffey and explaining to them why they do not deserve penalty rates on an appropriate public holiday in the festive season. That is a matter for him to explain to those people working in medical services or in retail services or in hospitality services why they do not deserve that. If that is his particular view, that is fine.

Like we will be across the rest of South Australia, we will be letting constituents of those Liberal members of parliament know that their representatives in this place do not believe that those workers are worth standing up for. That is the view of those Liberal MPs who do not support this measure. I cannot imagine having to look a retail worker or a hospitality worker or a health worker in the eye and say to them that they are not worth standing up for.

The member for Chaffey might not like it and if he does not like it, well, he can join with us and he can support this important piece of legislation; he can do the right thing by those workers in his community. He can stand side by side with those retail workers, with those hospitality workers and with those healthcare workers, rather than taking a position that effectively denigrates their contribution to our community, if that is how he feels.

Of course, that is not how he feels; that is not how he feels at all. He does not think that this is worth supporting and that is why he is getting hot under the collar, because his constituents are going to see the whites of his eyes when it comes to how he stands on this matter. He does not believe that they are worth more, on that particular day, on a public holiday, and that they should not have to be remunerated any further for giving up this important time with their families, with their friends and with their loved ones in order to do that essential work. I find that an absolutely scandalous position. The truth is there is no justification for the position that those opposite take—no justification whatsoever.

So while those opposite, presumably on what will be a nice warm day, click clack out of their houses in their board shorts and their thongs, down to the IGA to get a loaf of bread and maybe some milk and some orange juice so that they can continue on with their nice break over the festive season, as they are standing at the supermarket checkout, presumably they will be looking at someone aged 15 and upwards, looking them in the eye and thinking, 'I'm glad you're not getting a penalty rate on this Monday because I don't think it's worth you being remunerated any more than you would otherwise get paid on any other day of the year that does not attract penalty rates.'

Then they will click clack out of that supermarket, they will go over to the bottle-o maybe, they will buy a bottle of wine or a sixpack of beer, they will be looking that worker in the eye as they complete their transaction and I presume the same thought will be going through their head as well: 'You're not worth a penalty rate either.' That is what those opposite will be thinking: 'You're not worth the penalty rates either.'

God forbid that any misfortune should befall any of us and that somebody might need to be attended to by a health worker over the festive period, but presumably if one of them does themselves an injury or something worse and they are being attended by a health worker, as they are being attended, maybe bandaged up, even laid down on a gurney and pushed into the back of an ambulance, they will thinking (should they be conscious), 'You're not worth the penalty rates either.' That will be the view of those opposite.

Well, I and the people on this side of the parliament take the opposite view. Those people who have to spend time away from their families and loved ones, who have to work during the festive period, who do not get the advantage of the regular Christmas Day public holiday because it falls on a Saturday, should be compensated for having to work in the festive period. That is entirely appropriate.

I know that on those days, should I come across somebody who is engaged in work on that day, that I will be able to look them in the eye and think, 'I did my best for you. I realise the sacrifice that you're making personally, that your family is making and that you're making on behalf of our community in order to show up to work.' I will be able to look them in the eye, as will those members of the Labor Party, and say, 'I did my best for you. I recognise the service that you are doing for the community and I think you should be appropriately compensated.'

What it comes down to basically is the two-facedness of those opposite who continue to enjoy the benefits in their own lives that the union movement has provided to them over the last 130 years. They continue to enjoy all those benefits, yet they stand against that same movement for any further improvement to the lives or working conditions or entitlements that workers continue to desire.

They will enjoy their holidays, as I am sure they enjoy their weekends, as I am sure they enjoy their superannuation and their Medicare benefits and the safety net. They enjoy a safe workplace—well, except I guess in the current context in here at times—and they will continue to enjoy all those other benefits that the union movement has provided them, yet they will continue to turn their backs on workers and their representatives when their support is so needed.

I look forward to the debate on this matter. I look forward to looking into the whites of the eyes of those members opposite about how they choose to support or turn their back on workers in their own communities. I certainly look forward to participating in the pubic campaign to remind constituents about how those members opposite chose to vote on this important matter.

Debate adjourned on motion of Dr Harvey.

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