HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-11-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Holidays (Christmas Day) (No. 2) Amendment Bill

Final Stages

The Legislative Council disagreed to the amendment made by the House of Assembly for the reason indicated in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE OF THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY AND DISAGREED TO BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

No. 1. New clause, page 2, after line 15—Insert:

3A—Amendment of section 3B—Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve

Section 3B—after its present contents (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) However, subsection (1)(a) does not apply to 24 December in a particular year if that day falls on a Friday.

SCHEDULE OF THE REASON FOR DISAGREEING WITH THE FOREGOING AMENDMENT

Christmas is a time for giving not taking away.

Consideration in committee.

Mr BELL: I move:

That the House of Assembly's amendment be insisted on.

I ask that it be the will of this house to move forward.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It will not surprise the house to know that we on this side of the chamber do not support the member for Mount Gambier in seeking to insist on the house's previous amendment. The Legislative Council is entirely correct: Christmas is a time for giving and not for taking away.

More seriously, do we honestly think that it is appropriate in this day and age when we are seeking to confer an additional right on workers, that that should mean that an existing right should be taken away? That is not how workers' rights have been provided in this country over the last 140 years.

It was not the case when the working week was established. It was not the case when the working day was established. It was not the case when annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave, paternity leave or parental leave were provided. It was not the case when retirement benefits, superannuation or workers compensation were provided, or the requirement for safe workplaces or occupational health and safety legislation.

This is the sort of 19thcentury carry-on we would expect from those Tories opposite: those people who seek to denigrate workers, their rights and their entitlements. It is an outrage. More to the point, think of the practical application of this. Now we have people who are scheduled to work on Christmas Eve who are now going to lose their penalty rates so that people who are scheduled to work the following day, on Christmas Day, can have theirs. That is outrageous.

I thought the Liberal Party was meant to be the party of business. That is what they tell us. I would have thought that they would realise that in running a business and scheduling their workers to work in that business—if, indeed, they do need to work over this particular part of the festive period—that they would be rostering on some workers on Christmas Eve and rostering on other workers on Christmas Day. How do they justify to their employees that some people now will receive penalty rates and some people will not? How do they draw a distinction between the importance of Christmas Eve and the importance of Christmas Day?

Maybe the Liberal Party has not woken up to the modern era of families and realised that a lot of families—I would contend, perhaps, even the vast majority of families—spend that entire period attempting to catch up with family and loved ones to celebrate Christmas in various ways, over Christmas Eve and over Christmas Day. We should not be saying that Christmas Eve is not as worthy as Christmas Day, or vice versa. The truth is they both are.

It is extraordinary that those opposite would now give rise to the situation that a publicly employed paramedic who is working on Christmas Eve will now, under the terms of this amendment, no longer be entitled to penalty rates, but that same paramedic, should they be working on Christmas Day, will be. More to the point, different employees—one scheduled to work on Christmas Eve and one schedule to work on Christmas Day—will receive a different level of take-home pay because of the disparity in penalty rates.

I know that this government has got it in for paramedics. I know that in the middle of a global pandemic the Premier and the Treasurer, Rob Lucas, thought it was a good idea to engage in a 12-month long industrial dispute while ramping raged out of control. I know that is what they think of paramedics. Finally, now that dispute is over, they glibly tell paramedics that they value their worth to the community, that they respect their work. Today, once again those words from those opposite, those on the government benches, have been shown to be completely hollow and meaningless.

I think those who seek to insist on this amendment, creating this disparity between workers over less than a 36-hour period—a disparity between workers working for the same employer, a disparity between workers often providing essential government services—should be ashamed of themselves, absolutely ashamed of themselves. Here in the modern era, what on earth have those people opposite got against people who are forced and required to give up their labour during the festive season?

Please do not give me that argument, 'Well, it's voluntary. You can choose not to work.' The reality is that is no choice for most workers. The reality is that, if people choose not to work over one of these periods, they know they will not get work in the future, or they know they will get diminished work in the future. There is no choice.

I cannot believe that tomorrow it will be four months out from the next state election. I cannot believe that those opposite occupying very marginal seats—including the member for Newland, the member for King, the member for Adelaide, the member for Elder—want to stand at a polling booth and have to eyeball their constituents and say, 'I voted for you to lose penalty rates over the festive period. I had the option to make sure that everybody had penalty rates over Christmas and Christmas Eve, but I rejected that option and I made sure that there are some haves and there are some have-nots.'

Even by my use of the expression, of course, it rings true to all of us that that is what the Liberal Party stands for: ensuring that there is a disparity in our community between the haves and the have-nots. I really hope the member for Newland thinks carefully about this. I really hope the member for Adelaide thinks carefully about this, as do the member for Adelaide and the member for King, because this will be yet another opportunity for people on this side of the house—members of the Labor Party—to remind their constituents how once again those members of parliament have let down their communities.

I really hope none of them need an ambulance over the festive period. How must they feel, if they are conscious, when they are in that situation, that somebody attending to them might have had that penalty rate stripped away by their own vote on this very day only four months out from the next election? It is just appalling—absolutely appalling. I do not know what the member for Mount Gambier's motivation is in coming up with this amendment. Maybe he thought that this was some sort of King Solomon-like solution, where the difference would be split down the middle, so to speak.

I do not think he has recognised the practical impact of this. I do not think he has understood what it means to members of his own community. I do not think he has realised that there will be some workers in some places of employment who will now get a penalty rate in the same brief window of the Christmas period while other employees will not. I think that is a terrible shame.

That is why we do not support this motion by the member for Mount Gambier. We believe that people working over the Christmas period deserve penalty rates, whether it is in the evening of Christmas Eve or whether it is on the day of Christmas Day. We recognise that those people are giving up not only their labour but their opportunity to be with family, with loved ones to celebrate Christmas. To have that taken away by the member for Mount Gambier and those opposite is a shameful act.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): Member for Lee, you do not have a question?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No. Do you feel ashamed of your shameful acts?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): Sit down. You did not have the call. Next time, I will not ask.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The government does support the member for Mount Gambier's very sensible amendment. Those opposite have come into this chamber and have said, 'We want penalty rates for Christmas Day.' Well, the member for Mount Gambier's amendment provides penalty rates for Christmas Day. That is the heart of this. We all want people to be paid well for every day they work, and we all accept that on particular days there are reasons for them to receive a little bit more.

What this amendment says is there is a swap of the five hours from 7pm to midnight on Christmas Eve that under the current circumstances would receive a penalty rate. That would be swapped, essentially, for receiving the whole day of penalty rates on Christmas Day. Those opposite say that it should just be both. It should not be a trade, it should not be a compromise, it should be both. We say that almost everything that goes through this house is a bit of a compromise.

This only applies on the very rare occasions when the calendar means that we have this unusual situation where, as it currently stands, people on Christmas Day would get standard rates and people on the Monday following Christmas Day would get the penalty rates then. I understand that the people working on Christmas Day and the people working on the Monday may or may not be the same people, but the penalty rates paid across the whole period are the same.

What we are doing by supporting the member for Mount Gambier is saying, yes, we do support his proposal that people get penalty rates on Christmas Day when these circumstances occur, when the calendar means that as a rare occasion it would not otherwise happen. I actually have some good news for the member for Lee. I have some very good news for the member for Lee. His greatest concern was that public employees working on Christmas Eve would now not get the penalty rates.

I have great news for him: I have confirmation from the Treasurer that public employees working on Christmas Eve will get the penalty rates in exactly the same way as the original form of the rules applying, before the bill came into place, had no penalty rates required to be paid on Christmas Day. The Treasurer has said that doctors, nurses, police officers, ambulance officers, all those people who work for the government would still get the penalty rates on the Christmas Day.

If this bill is amended, if this bill passes, then everybody will get the penalty rates on the Christmas Day; and for the 7pm to midnight section on Christmas Eve, where essentially there is a compromise to lose those rates, all the people who the member for Lee says that he is concerned about—the public employees, the doctors, the nurses, the police officers, I think he might have said ambulance officers as well—will get the penalty rates on the Christmas Eve at the time that they would have otherwise got them anyway, and I have that commitment to share with the house from the Treasurer.

I think that this is a very positive outcome. This is a positive outcome in the sense of swapping a whole day's Christmas rates coming in for surrendering them for those five hours. But, on top of that, this is now better for all those workers than it was when we discussed this same amendment yesterday because now we have the additional commitment from the Treasurer that all those public employees, if this amendment passes—

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: If this bill passes, and if the other place chooses to accept it, then all those public employees—the doctors, the nurses, the security people, all sorts of health professionals, emergency services workers—all those essential workers employed by the state will still receive—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —the penalty rates on Christmas Eve. The government supports this. It is better for workers. More workers will be in a position to receive more penalty rates under the amendment proposed by the member for Mount Gambier.

Mr PICTON: Well, well, well! We have here now the government saying, 'No need to worry about us taking away the part-day public holiday on Christmas Eve because we are going to look after public servants.' What about everybody else who is going to miss out on that? Usually, it is the government coming in here saying, 'We should be focusing on the private sector because they are the ones where most people work. They are the ones who generate the income,' but now the government is trying to assure us, 'This is all fine, taking away this part-day public holiday, because public servants will be okay.'

How about the people you privatised who now work for Keolis Downer running our public transport services? They are now not going to be covered by a part-day public holiday. How about in the COVID plan you have just released this week saying that ambulance transfers, once we open the borders, are going to be conducted by private contractors under your plan? They are not going to be covered by the public holiday on Christmas Eve.

How about cleaners who work for private companies in our public hospitals? They are some of the lowest paid people who work in our public health system or anywhere across the government. Those people who work for private companies, doing an essential job in the age of COVID, cleaning our hospitals, they are not going to be covered by this part-day public holiday.

How about nurses and other staff who work in private hospitals that this government has now contracted to provide care for public patients under another privatisation by stealth? They are not going to be covered by this part-day public holiday, let alone the people who work in service stations, let alone the people who work in night fill, let alone the people who work in hospitality. None of those people are going to be covered by part-day public holiday. I do not know about you, but as a dad I love the night before Christmas, putting the cookies and milk out for Santa, the excitement—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Keep a straight face, Stephen.

Mr PICTON: I am serious. People who—

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

Mr PICTON: That's right.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): Order!

Mr PICTON: Families spend this time together as a ritual. It is a cherished family time, Christmas Eve and, like Christmas Day, if you miss out on that time with your family we believe you should be appropriately compensated for it. But this government is saying, 'You should be compensated for it if you are a public sector worker, but not if you are a private sector worker, not if you work in a petrol station or in night fill in a supermarket or if you work in hospitality. You should not be compensated for losing that time with your family.'

That is why I am proud to stand on this side of the house, where we support workers' benefits and we support that message that we received from the Legislative Council saying 'Christmas is a time for giving not a time taking away', but, unfortunately, what this government and what the member for Stuart in his contribution are seeking to do is to take away the benefits that were otherwise going to people in Port Augusta and Port Pirie. Do not worry, we will be reminding people in those areas of the decision that is being made today to take away their penalty rates on a cherished Christmas Eve this year.

Mr BELL: I thank all members who have contributed to the debate—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): I am not going to hold it up if other people want to go on, but it does not close the debate. I just make that clear.

Mr BELL: I will just make a contribution.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): You can just make a contribution to it.

Mr BELL: We have this classic case here at the moment. On this side, we are hearing all about workers, and that is very important. I have worked at Coles stacking shelves, my son works at Coles, all my kids work. However, there is also the other side, and that is business owners who have done it tough for two years, who choose whether to open or close over this period.

This is where the competitive tension in the debate should be, and it is good to have healthy debate in this chamber around that. The simple reality—and I think people are forgetting this—is that this is only when Christmas Day falls on a Saturday. It is something I am very hopeful the next government will give serious consideration to and fix once and for all.

We have to get that balance right. In my opinion, Christmas Day is the most important day to have penalty rates, for that Saturday when it falls on a Saturday. Yes, this is a compromise. Some people say they do not compromise and all the rest of it, but the reality is that if this bill is rejected and the numbers stack up so that Christmas Day is not a penalty rate day, a public holiday, workers are going to be left worse off.

We will go from what is the currently proposed four-day holiday or penalty rate period—Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday—back to a 3½ day public holiday penalty rate system—Friday 7pm to midnight, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. This amendment actually brings us into line with every other state except Queensland. Other people say the Northern Territory, but the Northern Territory does not have the Sunday as a penalty rate day either.

All I am trying to do is make Christmas Day a penalty rate day, a public holiday. That is what this bill achieves. If it is defeated, or a subsequent bill is defeated, those workers will not have Christmas Day as a penalty rate day. That is a very important point to make.

One of the first things you learn in this place is how to count, and I am pretty sure the numbers are going to line up that Saturday is not a penalty rate day; that is Christmas Day, and those workers are going to be worse off. This chamber can do something about that; we can give a surety to business owners as well as workers.

I accept the argument that you should not be taking something away to give something else. That is true; however, we are at this point with 38 days to go before Christmas, and this amendment gives balance to both the business owners and, of course, the workers.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am grateful for the contribution of the member for Kaurna because, as someone who knows the health system very well, he has pointed out the practical application of this in public hospitals, where there will now be a disparity on Christmas Eve between those who are publicly employed and working in a public hospital and those who are privately employed in a public hospital, working side by side on the same floor, together, at the same time. One group will get penalty rates and one group will not.

What is the possible justification for that? Confirmation has had to be hastily sought by the Minister for Energy from the Treasurer, Rob Lucas, 'Don't worry, don't worry. We've kept the public sector workers sweet.' Well, depending on which month it is, there are roughly 850,000 South Australians who have a job and only 100,000 of those work in the public sector.

So there are three-quarters of a million South Australians who stand to be worse off should they find themselves in employment where they are required to work on Christmas Eve at those times—simply not good enough—let alone all those people who will be working in purely private institutions. The member for Kaurna has talked about how Keolis Downer now has the contract to run our public transport services. So for the first time, those bus drivers, train drivers and tram drivers, working on Christmas Eve in the evening are going to lose their penalty rates.

Those people for the first time working in the Adelaide Remand Centre, privatised by this government, a high-security prison—or not so high security in the kitchen, of course, because under this government the bars on the windows have been known to come loose and people wriggle through them. Notwithstanding that, in this privatised high-security prison facility, they will no longer get penalty rates despite having to work on Christmas Eve. What is the justification for Correctional Services staff at Yatala on Christmas Eve getting paid penalty rates but not in the Adelaide Remand Centre?

Imagine what happens in the prison transfer. One corrections officer has to eyeball another; one on penalty rates and one not. It is like an Industry Super ad—compare the pair. It is extraordinary. This is what those opposite stand for, disparity between workers—have and have not, those who have a benefit and those who do not, those who are privileged and those who are not. It is just outrageous and it is indefensible.

The people who do have a choice, of course—and the member for Mount Gambier uses the example where he has worked and his kids work of that poor hard done by company that has had it so tough for the last two years, Coles, which had the biggest jump in turnover in profits in their history. They could not sell enough toilet paper. It is just extraordinary. They can choose to operate or not. So there is a choice for the employer. Should the employer choose to operate or trade or open in that period, then it is the employees who quite often do not have a choice.

Unbelievably, now this may create a situation where within the one place of employment, workers 38 or 39 days out from Christmas, whatever it is, may actually be flocking to work on Christmas Day rather than Christmas Eve so that, in giving up time that they would have otherwise spent with their family or loved ones over the Christmas period, at least they are going to get penalty rates on Christmas Day.

How could we be legislating that situation? How could we be encouraging workers to feel like the only way they can be adequately remunerated over Christmas is to choose to spend time away from their families on Christmas Day? It is remarkable, absolutely remarkable. So my question to the minister is—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): No, you cannot. The proponent is the member for Mount Gambier.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry. Perhaps the minister—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Pederick): Well, just try and run by the rules, that is all. Keep going.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question to the member for Mount Gambier is: does he think it is reasonable that these disparities will exist in our public hospitals—workers working side by side, one publicly, one privately, employed on Christmas Eve either will or will not get paid penalty rates depending on their employment; workers working in our correctional facilities, Adelaide Remand Centre versus Yatala, or Yatala versus Mount Gambier Prison, another privatised prison—that there is disparity?

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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