HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (SHOP TRADING AND HOLIDAYS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (19:49): I rise briefly to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Shop Trading and Holidays) Bill. My primary concern throughout this debate has predominantly come down to the following factors:

the cost of living and the impact that this is having on families;

the effect that any additional trading could have on small business and the associated cost implications for businesses overall;

the impact that any additional public holidays would have on the aged care sector, in particular;

the need to have the CBD open for trade on public holidays; and

the need to appropriately award those employees, especially low-paid employees, who are working on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.

My decision to support the bill has not been made lightly and I certainly have not been dismissive of the concerns raised by those opposite opposed to the proposed measures. I have given careful consideration to both sides of the debate and tried to strike a balance between the opposing views. Do I think that this matter could have been handled differently? Certainly, it could have. However, I have made my decision to support the bill in an amended form against the background of what I see as the alternatives.

If these measures are not adopted, the next conceivable offer on the table may very well be extending the scope of public holiday trading beyond the CBD or a complete deregulation of shopping hours. We have already seen a strong push along these lines throughout this debate. I am strongly opposed to both of these options and I am not willing to leave them to chance at this time.

There is already widespread concern over the fact that Coles, through the parent company Wesfarmers, and Woolworths hold the lion's share of the supermarket industry and are increasing their share of the liquor and petrol industries across Australia. They hold stakes in the hotel industry, the home improvement sector, in electrical stores, hardware stores, and variety stores, among others.

Already, 23¢ in every dollar or over $100 billion in sales across Australia go to Coles and Woolworths. Extending the scope of public holidays to the suburbs or moving towards complete deregulation will inevitably make the situation worse. It will be the demise of small business across Australia. In South Australia we are fortunate enough to have a relatively strong independent base in terms of our supermarket industry.

Stores falling under the banner of the Independent Grocers of Australia, including Foodlands, IGAs and Friendly Grocers, are all 100 per cent independently owned and very much part of the local community. These stores are committed to promoting local produce and supporting local suppliers, manufacturers and growers, as well as local community. I for one would like to see it stay that way.

In relation to the additional part-day public holidays specifically, my preferred position would have been to have them start at 9pm on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. I chose 9pm because that is the time that shops are ordinarily allowed to trade until if they so choose. I can understand why for many sectors, and in particular many public servants, including police officers and nurses, 9pm presented a challenge.

It would not have overcome many of the rostering issues that I am told that exist within these sectors that result in staff being paid ordinary rates as opposed to penalty rates because the majority of the hours they work fall within a non-public holiday. I am told that a 7pm starting time would alleviate that problem.

I might add that Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve have been highlighted to me as particularly difficult moments for employees working in these fields. I do not think anybody would question how gruelling it must be to work as a nurse, ambulance, emergency care worker or police officer on what are undoubtedly two of the busiest nights of the year, especially where party revellers are concerned.

With respect to the aged care sector, I have expressed to the Premier concerns specific to that sector, including charges for council rates and sewerage rates. For the benefit of all members, the Local Government Act provides that rates on land predominantly used for service delivery, or administration, or both, by a community service organisation will be rebated at 75 per cent or at the discretion of the council at a higher rate.

A community services organisation is defined as a body that is incorporated on a not-for-profit basis for the benefit of the public and provides community services without charge or for a charge that is below the cost of the body of providing the services and does not restrict its services to persons who are members of the body.

The act further provides that a council may at its discretion grant a rebate of rates or service charges in a number of cases including where the land is used to provide accommodation for the aged or disabled. The aged care sector facilities that do not fall within the definition of a community service organisation do not automatically get the benefit of the minimum 75 per cent rate rebate.

Whether or not they do in fact receive a rebate is at the discretion of the council. In addition, as I understand it, all aged care facilities incur sewerage supply charges based on the capital value of their property as determined by the Valuer-General. The same facilities are already exempt from land tax.

Alleviating aged care facilities' need to pay a sewerage supply charge and ensuring that they all receive a rebate for their rates will go a long way to assisting them financially. The Premier has indicated that consideration will be given to these issues. My support for the bill is not contingent on the outcome of those considerations. However, I will continue to advocate for those concessions.

My colleague the Hon. Kelly Vincent has also expressed concerns regarding the disability sector. The Premier has also undertaken to address some of those issues. There is no question that part-day public holidays are a new concept in South Australia and that there may be ramifications in relation to the modern award process. It is not the first time and it certainly will not be the last time that new concepts will spring up. It also will not be the first time that we are faced with challenges as a result of change.

It does not follow that we should sit back and do nothing in fear of creating change. These issues will need to be addressed through the appropriate channels if and when they arise. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that the majority of workers most impacted by these changes are some of the lowest-paid workers in the state.

My office has been inundated with postcards and letters of support from people in support of the part-day public holidays, as I am sure all members' offices have been. Many employees working on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve sacrifice the opportunity to spend time with family and loved ones. In many instances they provide a community service by working on these nights for the benefit of the rest of us. It is only fair that they be appropriately remunerated for their work in return.

In closing, there is no doubt that South Australia needs the CBD to be open for trade on public holidays. As I have said on numerous occasions throughout this debate, the alternative would be to have Australia's only cemetery with lights. I have tried to find a balance between the opposing views, and I think that balance has been achieved. I would like to thank the Premier and all the stakeholders with an interest in this matter for making themselves available to discuss this issue with me at such length. I can assure all of them that their concerns have not fallen on deaf ears.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (19:57): I rise on behalf of the Greens to put our parliamentary party position on the Statutes Amendment (Shop Trading and Holidays) Bill 2012. From the outset I would like to acknowledge, as have some other members, that we have received more lobbying on this issue than certainly than any other issue in my experience, and that includes the issue of voluntary euthanasia. In discussions about this people joked with me that perhaps people care about shopping more than they care about death. I hope that is not the case, but certainly it has sparked a very fierce public debate.

We have met with a range of people. I will briefly outline some of them to give an indication of how widely we have consulted on this. We have received submissions from the Chapley Group; Globalize; Adelaide Central Plaza; SA Unions; Southern Cross Arcade; Food Court; the Rail, Tram and Bus Union; Shades; the Maras Group (I met with Theo Maras and other members of the Rundle Mall Management Authority); the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation; Romeo's Retail Group; Uniquely Rundle Mall; the TWU; the ASU; the Police Association; United Voice; SA Unions; Drakes Supermarkets; Adelaide City Council; Business SA and Peter Vaughan, representing Business SA; the SDA Secretary Peter Malinauskas; the AHA; the SA Business Coalition; Clubs SA; SA Wine Industry Association; Restaurant & Catering SA; the Aged Care Association of Australia; Caravan and Camping; Motor Trade Association; the Tourism Industry Council; the Liquor Stores Association; the Baking Associations of Australia (SA branch); the Australian Automobile Dealers Association; Tourism Accommodation Australia; the Youth Hostels Association; Hostels Accommodation Australia; Service Station Division SA; the Boating Industry Association; the Shopping Centre Council of Australia; and there were more.

Two members of parliament also put particular perspectives and I would like to thank them for their time, and they are the member for Mount Gambier and the member for Adelaide. I actually think that is not an exhaustive list. I also thank both minister Wortley and his staff and the Premier and his staff for their briefings and information.

Given that amount of lobbying, I think we would all acknowledge that this is a vexed issue. I have certainly heard at times in the debate that there is no need for a deal on this issue as it would gain support. I am here to clarify that this issue before us of increased retail trading hours is not one that the Greens would support of and by itself. The issue of trading hours in retail is one which has been particularly vexed in the community. Certainly, the views of those in the community who do not support increased trading hours have not been strongly heard loud and clear. We have had a particular mind to listening to those views as well.

One of the charges made in this debate is that Adelaide will be a backwater if we do not embrace the idea of increased trading hours in our retail sector. One place that could certainly never be called a backwater is London, and London is currently grappling with the issue of increased Sunday trading hours for the Olympics. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the trading hours debate there, Britain's Treasury chief is planning to loosen restrictions on Sunday trading during, in that hemisphere, this summer's London Olympics. By law, large stores in England and Wales can only open for six hours on a Sunday, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, says these restrictions will be lifted during the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

So, we are hardly alone in debating these issues. Certainly, the opposition Labour Party Treasury spokesman there (who has the wonderful name of Ed Balls) says that he would not want to see this change become permanent. I caught the end of a media story on this, where there is a really huge groundswell campaign from the community, under the flagship of 'Sundays are special'. They certainly do not want to see the restrictions that will be lifted for the Olympics in London continue beyond that period. I would point to that when we hear charges that somehow Adelaide is different and unusual in grappling with this idea of unrestricted trading hours.

A little closer to home, in Australia we know that there have been many moves to deregulate retail trading over the years. Certainly, one state that is in a similar position in many ways to our own is WA, where the issue has actually been well tested in terms of community opinion. In that state, the Greens have certainly been part of the strong campaign that has been mounted by smaller retailers to highlight significant and valid concerns about the structure of ownership within the retail trading sector and the influence upon the market of the large players, as other members have mentioned, particularly the Coles and the Woolworths of this world. Certainly, in South Australia, we are in a fortunate position of not having those two big players in the supermarket sector having quite as large a share as they do interstate.

The issue was actually taken to a referendum in that state, and I think you cannot get anymore contentious a community issue than one which necessitates a referendum. The result indicated that the majority of the community in WA is certainly not seeking to extend the opportunities to consume. There is a bigger philosophical question here: whether or not we want to be a community that wants everybody to be able to shop every hour of the day and night, every day of the week, and what would that do to us as a community and as a society? Of course, the reality is we actually already have that ability now. The online shopping and shopping TV revolution has well and truly happened. It is not on its way: it is here. I personally find that sad, but it is the reality.

I guess the question that must be asked is: why do we need retail trading hours regulation? A quick glance at the recent Productivity Commission report into retail trading in Australia certainly has some particularly strong views that there should be deregulation. It points out that restrictions on shop trading hours, including the opportunity for some small businesses to trade without competition from larger retailers and reduce the need for retail employees to work outside traditional working hours, have certainly been supported in the past.

It uses some interesting language, saying that 'restrictions on trading hours impinge on consumer choice regarding when (and where) to shop' and that they cause inconvenience. They say that for retailers there are efficiency costs and administration costs in complying with what are termed 'restrictive' state trading regimes. They believe that changes in social patterns have contributed to decisions by state and territory governments to liberalise trading hours regimes over time. But for all states, some trading restrictions still remain, and they continue, in the words of the Productivity Commission, 'to discriminate between retailers on the basis of products sold, size and location'. I am not sure that that is the sort of discrimination that gets me excited, but for some people, including this particular Productivity Commission report, I can see where they are coming from.

Beyond the deregulated ACT and Northern Territory regions, the Productivity Commission report particularly notes that Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland are what it terms the most 'restrictive states'. I have a different word for it. I would perhaps say that we are the most family-friendly or that we have a mind to having a social fabric. There are two sides to any coin. I can see that there are benefits to having the so-called restrictive trading hours and practices and limitations as being of benefit to the social fabric of our state.

Some of the regulated states have also established geographic shopping districts, or regional trading precincts. So, we are not alone in that as well. They have created what are called 'boundary anomalies'. To put it in South Australian terms, they are what we are familiar with, and that is the Jetty Road, Glenelg tourism precinct and, of course, the Harbour Town precinct.

I note that we are not alone as a state in having a Harbour Town. It has always seemed odd to me that we have a Harbour Town that is nowhere near a harbour, until you realise that these Harbour Towns are unrestricted shopping malls in the middle of nowhere, usually on federal land or similar, with unrestricted hours. One of them must have been near a harbour once is all that I can figure. They are called Harbour Town, and they are all usually clearance shoppers' heaven, with massive warehouse housing for people who wish to consume and who have that retail therapy to do so, with longer hours than their more local shops perhaps.

The Productivity Commission report contends that there are good reasons why trading hours should be fully deregulated. It talks about what it called 'consumer welfare benefits' that would be associated with greater convenience and product choice. I find the term 'consumer welfare' a little odd. I do acknowledge, of course, that there is a role for retail therapy in many people's life, but I am not sure that the Greens are going to go in to bat for consumer welfare. I acknowledge that we live in a global community. The corner shop may be great to grab a litre of milk and a loaf of bread, but you can jump online and get those things delivered almost as quickly and, for my purposes, even better, you do not have to get out of your pyjamas to do so.

An honourable member: Hear, hear!

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: 'Hear, hear!', I say. I am a big fan of online shopping, not that I am a big fan of shopping in general. I do not see, as I have said, the rise of online shopping necessarily leading to the demise of retail. Many industries evolve and adapt over time, and retail is no different from other industries in that way, but the online shopping industry has certainly made a substantial impact in opening up our retail market. Our retail competitors are now not just down the street or in the next suburb; they are now national and, of course, international. Combine that with our high dollar and the ease of postage in Australia and the reasonably good postage system we enjoy, many segments of Australian retail are no longer protected by our so-called tyranny of distance.

A member previously noted that he found it challenging that the online environment existed and that, in fact, a small retailer was battling to compete with the prices that could be offered in that retail environment, but that is the nature of retail and the market environment. As I have said, that can have both positives and negatives. The internet has given enhanced transparency for consumers. It is really easy to get online to check products and pricing, and you can compare really quickly between retailers, and that is a welcome thing for most consumers.

On the weekend, I went to an event called the 'Bowerbird Bazaar', which is an Adelaide craft market, with handmade and handcrafted wares. It was everything you might think the Greens would attend.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Lots of hessian.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There was a lot of hessian. There was a lot of organic, fair trade, free range, slightly overpriced beautiful crafts. It was a wonderful environment and there were a lot of things I would have loved to have bought then and there. I was handed a small book as I entered, and it was not until I got home that I realised every single one of those craft stalls had an online presence as well. Each and every one of them had a website. No doubt, I will be consuming some of those products at a later date, and many of the people who attended that craft market will do so as well.

That area, which you would think would be an area that would rely on the physical ability to see the products, to touch them and see the quality, also harnesses the values and benefits of the online retail sector. Many can and will be able to respond effectively to this new environment. Indeed, rural and remote communities are in a wonderful position to be able to take on this industry with the click of a mouse, meaning that they can have a transaction with a consumer rather than requiring foot traffic just outside their front door. If their front door is 100 kilometres from the nearest neighbour, that is a wonderful thing.

There is an onus on retailers to adjust to this, but from a public policy perspective government can enhance our competitiveness by ensuring retailer flexibility through changes to the regulatory environment in which they operate, and these include planning and zoning shopping hours and workplace practices. It has been put to us in this bill that Rundle Mall and the City of Adelaide as our capital city holds a special place and, in that, I think we can all see that there is a value in having our capital city of our state being open, diverse and vibrant.

On that note, Splash Adelaide gets a tick from me and, aside from the unfortunate disabled parking issue which I gather was reasonably quickly addressed, there has been a wonderful buzz to the city in the past few months. I would hope to see the vibe (not wanting to quote The Castle) and the feeling in the city over the past few months replicated and I imagine that increased shopping hours on public holidays is one of the ways we will see that more often in our city.

There was some consternation from some of the traders that their turf was under threat if a temporary burger van, a popcorn stall or little sidewalk coffee shop opened up near their regular store. Many other traders saw that as an opportunity to create critical masses, if you like, to get people to stay longer in the city and to spend their time there. I saw lots of people enjoying the Splash Adelaide venues that popped up and then disappeared; that feeling that there was a moment there to be taken advantage of was a very special part of that over summer.

Much conjecture has been made about this bill that we should be wary that a deal has been done. Well, that is pretty obvious. It was announced in October and it was talked about well before that. Far from being sinister and hidden—I certainly have copies of the agreement—all parties of Business SA and the SDA have been very forthcoming with information about the background of how they came to strike this deal.

From the lobbying and conversations that have happened, there was not one solution that was going to be easily reached here. As I have indicated, the Greens would not have been happy with extending shopping hours in the city on public holidays in and of itself. I note that previously the member for Adelaide's private member's bill very recently put that as a standalone issue. That bill failed to secure the numbers in the House of Assembly. It certainly never reached debate in this chamber. Had it done, of course, there would not have been any trade-off by the conflicting interests. I certainly think that some trade-off here is warranted and indicate that should this bill be decoupled we will not be supporting the deregulation of shopping hours in the city.

As I say, far from being sinister or covert, I have copies of the shop trading hours agreement of October 2011 that was signed by both the CEO of Business SA, Peter Vaughan, and the secretary of the SDA (SA Branch), Peter Malinauskas. It is quite transparent, and I imagine that it is reasonably easy to get a copy of that particular deal. I also had some reservations, because the Greens are not necessarily used to dealing with the SDA. I was certainly very eager to check with other unions, in particular United Voice, that they were supportive of the deal. Not only are they supportive, but they have campaigned strongly across the union movement because they see this as a great win for workers, and certainly the Greens agree with them on that.

The other reservation that we had was that it was indicated that Peter Vaughan, as CEO of Business SA, was somehow acting beyond his brief. My meetings with him, the paperwork that he provided me, and certainly a media statement from the board reiterate their support. I will read some of that for the Hansard. The president, Vincent Tremaine, stated on 9 February 2012:

As President of Business SA, I unequivocally state that the agreement reached was a Board decision and therefore is a policy of Business SA. We agreed on this deal as being the best outcome for the people of South Australia and in particular the Adelaide CBD.

Business SA has a long standing policy of full deregulation of local shop trading hours. This historic agreement has already been massively supported by the people of South Australia, as evidenced by the recent public holiday shopping in the CBD on 27 December, 2 January and on Australia Day.

This was the best available agreement that could be reached in order to achieve a breakthrough of public holiday shop trading hours in this State. Not implementing these changes would mean that the current archaic shop trading hours would remain in place, subjecting the State to further ridicule from the rest of the country.

I would disagree that we would be further ridiculed by the rest of the country, but I certainly take on board that both parties made concessions on this and that there was no easy solution without some concessions being made. That said, not everyone who opposes this bill actually wants to see the shops open for longer, and in fact there are some who are quite to the contrary. I certainly had representations from a few of them, but in particular Peter Shearer Menswear wrote to us stating:

In summary, we oppose any further changes to trading hours. We feel that trade on Public Holidays is not financially viable and is a significant imposition on family life. Accepting trade on Public Holidays and extended trading hours, in our opinion is a push towards total deregulation of trading hours. The impact that this decision will have on retail in general is significantly negative as independent retailers leave the market.

With the wisdom of hindsight, it is important to note that since the introduction of extended trading our industry has had numerous independent menswear stores close down. We don't have to look far to see other retail industries suffer the same fate. Our own figures show that the increase in trading hours has not brought the same rate of increase in turnover as it has in costs, and we are a successful retailer. When will the decision-makers learn?

As I say, not everyone who opposed the bill did so because they wanted more shopping hours. There was a wide cross-section of beliefs and positions that have come to bring this bill before this chamber tonight. Indeed, I have to shake my head at the assertions that all the political parties were looking to extend trading hours. Certainly, the Greens were not. If we had all agreed on that, we would all be sitting here singing Kumbaya and holding hands and not debating; but we are actually quite vigorously debating this bill tonight.

Having a consensus has dogged this issue for decades. There has been no consensus, and we have an incredibly broad range of opinions on this issue. Two of the major players, being Business SA and the SDA, have made an agreement and they have taken it to government. The government has agreed and then of course public debate has erupted. Other major players have had quite valid opinions, and certainly the Business Coalition and SA Unions have lobbied us strongly and effectively, and I guess the diversity in the chamber is testament to the power of the lobbies on all sides.

The lobbying has, of course, been taken up to the government, the opposition, the crossbenchers and through the media. I point out that The Advertiser has had some really interesting and unexpected positions on this. Certainly, The Advertiser has been a big winner out of this debate in the amount of advertising revenue it has received from all sides. It must be hoping that there will be some other controversial issue that is so well lobbied and advocated for some time soon to build up its coffers.

If The Advertiser's editorials are anything to go by, the debate also rages among those who work for the paper itself. On 8 November 2011, there was an editorial, 'Business votes for progress', which stated:

The argument about people needing to spend time with their families and to protect the idea of public holidays is good in theory. For years, working conditions have been changing and large sections of the work force have been working odd hours and on public holidays.

While these changes might not meet the aims of total deregulation, it is a significant step towards returning a vibrancy to the central business district which has been lacking for so many years.

Certainly, reasonably positive, and finishing with the sentence:

This is a smart move by all involved—the union, business and the Government—and once the changes become law early next year will add a new dynamism to the CBD.

Then, on 21 November, the editorial headline read, 'Shopping hours need a review'. It was stated in that editorial that allowing public holiday shopping in the CBD was an overdue but welcome move from the state government, and polling showing public desire for an extension to the suburbs shows that that too should be considered. On 22 February, there was an editorial with the headline, 'Unfair penalty in holiday trading deal'. Clearly, The Advertiser had had some second thoughts from its two previous editorials. The editorial reads:

The deal on shop trading hours struck between the shop workers' union and Business SA and then adopted by the State Government needs to be revisited.

Finally, and I am sure we have not seen the last of editorials on this issue from The Advertiser, on 22 March the headline reads, 'A sensible deal for shoppers', and it states:

South Australia's public holiday trading debate has been messy but ultimately fruitful.

As I say, I think The Advertiser was the big winner with the enormous amount of advertising it gained through this campaign. At first, The Advertiser did not seem to appreciate the public holidays aspect of this bill. Perhaps that was more to do with the journalist who wrote the initial editorials than anything inherent in the bill or the government's presentation of the bill to this parliament.

We have heard the claims that nowhere else in the world do we see part-day public holidays. That is a claim that just does not stand up to scrutiny. A brief library search pulls up a whole range of part-day public holidays. Sweden has quite a few. My favourites were the ones in China, which actually has four different half-day public holidays: Women's Day, where women get half a day off; Youth Day, where if you are between 14 and 18 you get a half day off; if you are under 13 there is Children's Day; and if you are in the army you get a half day off on Army Day.

We have seen public holidays for all sorts of unusual reasons. I would contend that a public holiday for a horse race that stops the whole nation, being the Melbourne Cup, and most states stop for at least an hour or so if not the whole afternoon, is a very Australian tradition. Somebody who has never lived here and did not understand that that was part of our culture would probably find it a little odd that in this country we have public holidays for horse races, but that is part of our culture, and culture is, of course, something that constantly evolves and adapts to reflect the realities of our lives.

There is the Devonport Cup, the Launceston Cup, and in Brisbane there is a CBD-only holiday for the Ekka, which is like our royal show. I grew up in Sydney where we always had a school day off—rotating across the city—for the royal show, and most workers also somehow found time to be rostered off. They did it for area so that not every school went out at the same time.

Across Australia we see public holidays for all sorts of reasons, and, as the Hon. Kelly Vincent noted, we are certainly not the state with the most public holidays—New South Wales takes the honours there, is the way I would term it. Our public holidays this year will not include the one that is going to happen in Queensland, where clearly they take the title of their state quite seriously because they will not only be having the Queen's Birthday when everyone else does (on that second Monday in June) but they will also be celebrating the Queen's Diamond Jubilee on 2 June this year.

As we can see public holidays are not set in stone. Some points of interest in a search on public holidays also pulled up that Ireland does not actually have a public holiday for Good Friday. Certainly that was something that I would have assumed would be the case. In Australia we do not all have a public holiday for Easter Sunday; in fact, New South Wales is the one state that has that most enshrined, if you like.

I understand that some honourable members will be moving amendments to this bill with regard to shifting public holidays, and certainly the Adelaide Cup current public holiday in March has been flagged as the subject of an amendment. I noted with interest the moving of that particular public holiday to suit the racing industry in the past. Certainly it now being placed in March has been good for events such as the Future Music Festival, WOMADelaide, the Fringe and the Festival.

I have always liked the fact that it is right near International Women's Day, and in fact in 2010 it was on 8 March which was International Women's Day. Certainly I would think that that would be a fitting date to commemorate as the March long weekend public holiday. Many countries around the world do have in fact an International Women's Day public holiday. Some of them have a half day for that particular public holiday.

Certainly in Sweden, as I mentioned, a lot of people who have those half-day public holidays, I understand, usually throw in a bit of their annual leave and take the whole day off with their annual leave combined there. To summarise, the Greens do not believe that the impost on retail and associated workers who will be required to work additional times—let's not fool ourselves here—should be taken lightly.

We also believe that long-suffering parts of the workforce who have for many, many years been required to work on New Year's Eve and Christmas Eve—and their families—should actually get appropriate recompense for the loss of those times from their social lives. A recognition that for many Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays are not standard work hours—and certainly for many the evenings are not standard work hours—has been part of the long-fought gains achieved by the union movement, so it should be little surprise that, given some thought and seeking a lateral solution where there were warring forces in a stand-off, the SDA—and, yes, it was led by Peter Malinauskas—would throw this issue onto the bargaining table.

It should also come as little surprise that Peter Vaughan and Business SA accepted the deal. They stood to gain from a campaign that he and Business SA had long fought. The board has stood by the decision. I have met with Mr Vaughan in recent weeks and, as a representative of Business SA, he continues, I understand, to have the full support of his board in advocating for this bill.

I would like to conclude with some mention of the Police Association of South Australia, which, of course, like the nurses who I also met with and who are thrilled with this bill, will be working more than likely most New Year's eves and Christmas eves of their working lives in the police force. They really welcome this bill because the part of the bill which establishes part-day public holidays between 5pm (then)—now it will be 7pm if the amendment from the Hon. John Darley is successful—and midnight on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve is of significant benefit to police officers, particularly that New Year's Eve date.

I would like to note that that was a particular date of significance for the nurses as well because that is in fact one of their hardest shifts of the year to fill and one of the most difficult shifts of the year to work. The Police Association wrote to me and said that they had attempted through many enterprise agreement negotiations to address their members' concerns in respect of payment on New Year's Eve. SA Police roster a large contingent of police officers who work on New Year's Eve to start between 7pm and 7.30pm currently. Owing to this rostered start time, those members are not entitled to any payment at public holiday rates for work they perform after midnight, that is, on the public holiday of either New Year's Day or, of course, Christmas Day. This is because they work the majority of their rostered shift on the non-public holiday, New Year's Eve, which is why they are rostered on so early.

They work these 12-hour shifts in reality and they don't get the benefit of the fact that they are working on one of the hardest days of the year on a public holiday while everyone else is, typically, having their family time, their social time or their down time. The police suffer because this creative rostering, as they quite kindly refer to it, 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 up to 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 Police Association of South Australia members that the successful passage of this bill occur to eliminate the great injustice that they have endured for many years. The need for large numbers of police, and indeed all emergency services workers, to work on New Year's Eve is indisputable, as is the benefits that this will bring and the recognition this will bring in South Australia that we actually value our social fabric and not just our shopping hours. With that I commend the bill.

The PRESIDENT: The honourable minister, to wrap up.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: We have clearly on the sheet that it goes into committee.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: This week.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: No, today.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Our sheet clearly says that we wanted to adjourn it and the Whip knows that, and I spoke to the leader about that earlier.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: This is a stalling tactic.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! It has been moved that the debate be adjourned—is that seconded?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Seconded.

The council divided on the motion:

AYES (9)
Brokenshire, R.L. Dawkins, J.S.L. (teller) Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I.
Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G.
NOES (10)
Darley, J.A. Finnigan, B.V. Franks, T.A.
Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M. Hunter, I.K.
Kandelaars, G.A. Parnell, M. Wortley, R.P. (teller)
Zollo, C.

Majority of 1 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (20:36): I would like to thank all members for their contributions, and I will make a few comments regarding that at the end of these closing remarks. The regulation of South Australia's shop trading hours has been debated in the community over many decades and this debate has intensified over recent months with the introduction of the Statutes Amendment (Shop Trading and Holidays) Bill 2012.

The passage of this bill will mean that as a community we have resolved decades of debate with respect to shop trading hours while at the same time retaining the balance between the interests of small retailers, larger retailers, workers and the broader community. What is more exceptional about this compromise is that it will have been achieved with agreement between South Australia's peak business group, Business SA, and the relevant union, the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, which have been at loggerheads over this issue for some time. I congratulate these two organisations for putting aside their ideological differences on this issue in the interests of the South Australian community.

The proposed changes contained in this bill will bring our shop trading laws into the 21st century in a way that supports the creation of a vibrant Adelaide city centre while at the same time providing some new protection for South Australians who are required to work on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. These are special nights of the year when the rest of us have the opportunity to be with friends and family.

I thank honourable members for their contributions during the second reading debate and will now address the specific questions and issues which have been raised. As there has been much discussion in this chamber about a wide range of issues, many of which do not actually relate to this bill, I would like to remind members what this bill is about. The Statutes Amendment (Shop Trading and Holidays) Bill 2012 will allow retailers in the central business district tourist precinct to open on most public holidays from 11am to 5pm. This will bring life into the heart of Adelaide on days during which the city would once have been deserted.

Members will be aware that, following recent mature and constructive discussions with many of my colleagues in this chamber, I will move amendments to the bill which will ensure that employees in the national system of industrial relations who are requested to work after 7pm on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve will have the right to reasonably refuse to work or receive appropriate penalty rates of pay under the appropriate industrial instrument.

Shop trading and public holiday laws have also been criticised for being overly complex and difficult to understand. The bill provides for a significant reduction in red tape as outdated procedures for receiving shop trading exemptions are streamlined. Significant benefits for South Australia will flow on from these changes, including the economic and cultural benefits of increased shop trading hours in the newly defined central business district tourist precinct.

The bill will allow non-exempt shops in the CBD tourist precinct to open from 11am until 5pm on most public holidays. Retailers will have the benefit of additional trade, surrounding restaurants and other establishments will experience a resulting increase in sales, and the community will enjoy an injection of new life into Adelaide.

However, this government also recognises the special significance of 25 December (Christmas Day), Good Friday and ANZAC Day. This bill balances our desire for economic growth and vibrancy in the city centre with a recognition of South Australian community values and expectations by ensuring that shops remain closed on these days.

Once enacted, these amendments will ensure that South Australians, as well as tourists, will view the CBD tourist precinct as a central meeting place in South Australia; a meeting place which will be bustling with vitality and activity. By identifying the city centre as a tourist precinct for the purposes of shop trading laws, this government is further signalling its ongoing commitment to making Adelaide a tourist destination for the 21st century. The combination of cultural attractions, great food and fine wine and a unique shopping experience will make Adelaide a 'must visit' city on the Australian tourist map.

In an overwhelming confirmation of the community's support for enhancing the experience of visiting the Adelaide CBD on public holidays, I can provide the following statistics regarding recent public holiday trading provided by the Rundle Mall Management Authority: on Tuesday 27 December 2011, 125,000 people filled Rundle Mall, with approximately $12 million in sales; on Monday 2 January 2012, 70,000 people visited Rundle Mall, with approximately $6 million in sales; on Thursday 26 January 2012, 70,000 people visited Rundle Mall, with approximately $7.5 million in sales; and on Monday 12 March, there were 80,000 visitors to Rundle Mall, with approximately $7.5 million in sales.

The community is clearly talking with its feet. It is apparent from these figures that the City of Adelaide is one of South Australia's greatest economic assets. Ensuring our capital city's vibrancy into the future is a key priority for this government. The reforms proposed in this bill are only one piece in the puzzle of creating a vibrant, modern and world-class Adelaide cosmopolitan centre. This goal is supported by the government's proposed upgrade of the Adelaide Oval, the development of the Riverbank Precinct and the construction of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

The bill does not propose to change shop trading provisions applying to the suburbs in Adelaide. This fits with South Australians' expectations of both a vibrant, open city heart and the preservation of the best aspects of our quieter, family-friendly neighbourhoods. It also protects local businesses, independent supermarkets, and convenience stores.

Suppliers and local producers will also be protected from the increasing domination in the market of the big supermarket chains that we see having such negative effects interstate. There is no doubt that one of the reasons we have the strongest independent supermarket sector in Australia and a strong local fresh produce sector is that the government has stood strongly against the total deregulation of shop trading for which some, particularly in our business community, have lobbied.

Total deregulation of shop trading hours will put at risk many small producers and businesses across South Australia, particularly in the independent grocer sector. There have been claims that the government does not need to legislate these types of changes to shop trading hours. It is true that the Shop Trading Hours Act 1977 allows exemptions to be granted to allow shops to trade outside normal shop trading hours, but exemptions are not the way to make permanent exceptions to the law.

This government has decided on a policy of reform to shop trading hours, and it intends to ensure that this policy is delivered in a clear and transparent way and in the appropriate way to make changes—and that is through the parliamentary process. To change shop trading hours on a permanent basis, the legislation regulating shop trading hours must change.

The opportunity for shops to increase trading hours is balanced in this bill by protecting the evenings of Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve for those who make economic growth possible—South Australia's workers. While recognising these two days as part-day public holidays from 7pm until 12 midnight will only constitute an increase of 10 hours out of 8,760 hours in a year, the importance of these nights to individuals for community celebration and family gatherings cannot be underestimated.

The provisions creating the part-day public holidays acknowledge the fact that, while most of us are at home or out enjoying ourselves at those very special times of the year, there are others who are protecting us and serving us. I refer, of course, to our nurses, police, firefighters and hospitality workers. The part-day public holidays will allow workers to access any applicable public holiday protections and penalty rates if they work on these special nights.

Prescribing part-day public holidays also gives private sector workers the right to reasonably refuse to work on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve pursuant to the National Employment Standards in the commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009, providing them with the opportunity to spend that time with family, friends and loved ones or be compensated appropriately should they choose to work.

The creation of these part-day public holidays also recognises this government's commitment to the family, religious and cultural values that are very important to most South Australians at these special times of the year. These South Australian values are reflected in a recent Newspoll survey; an overwhelming 80.6 per cent of whom supported higher rates of pay for those in our community who work on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. These numbers cannot be dismissed. The people of South Australia have voiced their opinion, and they support these reforms.

The opposition has argued that South Australia should not adopt part-day public holidays because they are not observed in other states. Pertinently, this argument fails to acknowledge that public holidays are about recognising the values, traditions and the particular needs of local communities. That is why the framework for the national industrial relations system, the commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009, clearly dictates that each state and territory has the ability to create and observe its own public holidays and part-day public holidays. That is why each Australian jurisdiction, including South Australia, currently celebrates public holidays that are unique to the state, territory or region.

I would like to bring members' attention to the fact that New South Wales regularly has half-day public holidays in regional areas, with 13 half-day public holidays in 2012, such as the Albury Gold Cup, Parkes Show, and Jacaranda Thursday. Various members have raised concerns about the introduction of the proposed part-day public holidays on business in regional areas. Firstly, most businesses (regional and otherwise) will not be impacted by the additional 10 hours a year of public holidays. Most of them—both regional and metropolitan—recognise the importance of Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve evenings by not trading on those days.

Secondly, any proposition that the proposed part-day public holidays would apply only to city workers is absurd. This government believes in equity for all workers, irrespective of the location in which they work. An argument in favour of paying public holiday penalty rates only in metropolitan areas on the part-day public holiday essentially amounts to an argument in favour of placing greater value on the work of city workers as compared to rural and suburban workers. That is why the bill proposes that the part-day public holiday will apply across the whole state.

Members may be aware of the advice provided by Minter Ellison Lawyers to Mr John Chapman, Executive Director of the Motor Trade Association of South Australia, and spokesperson for the SA Business Coalition. I am advised that SafeWork SA has assessed the Minter Ellison advice, and I can provide members with the following critical information in response to that legal advice. For most employers, the industrial implications of the new part-day public holidays from 7pm until midnight on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve will be the same as the industrial implications of any public holiday. The general principle for managing a public holiday is that a worker may reasonably refuse to work on a public holiday. If a worker does work on a public holiday, he or she is compensated with the appropriate penalty rates. If a worker would normally work on a day of the week that is a public holiday but, because it is a public holiday, the employer is closed, the worker will not suffer any reduction in pay.

If a worker would not normally work on the day of the week that is a public holiday, he or she is not entitled to be paid for that time. For example, a full-time worker who works a five-day, 30-hour week from Tuesday to Saturday does not gain any benefit from the several public holidays that fall on a Monday. Likewise, there are many part-time workers who do not work every day of the week and gain no benefit from a public holiday that occurs on a day on which they would not have ordinarily worked. Then there are those part-time workers who only work three or four hours a day. If their three or four hours happen to fall on a public holiday and the business closes for the public holiday, they only get paid for the three or four hours that they would have normally worked on that day.

These principles should be no different for part-day public holidays, with the only difference being the observance of a five-hour period as the public holiday, rather than a 24-hour period. The first 19 hours of Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve should be treated like any other normal working day. Recently, through the media and other sources, I have also heard all sorts of scaremongering about the unattended consequences that could be created by part-day public holidays. This has now been extended to how many annual leave entitlements may be affected.

An honourable member: How many what?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Annual leave entitlements may be affected. The commonwealth Fair Work Act clearly contemplates part-day public holidays under the state and territory public holiday laws. The supposed loopholes being raised are mischievous. I am very confident that South Australia's new part-day public holidays will be treated in the same way as public holidays are currently.

Section 115 of the Fair Work Act lists certain days that are recognised nationally as public holidays and any other day or part day declared or prescribed under a state or territory law. Section 114 provides a reasonable right to refuse work on a day or part day that is a public holiday. There has been no dispute to date that this will mean these rights will be available to workers between the hours of 7pm and 12 midnight on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.

As I stated earlier, this year alone, New South Wales has 13 regional part-day public holidays declared pursuant to its Holidays Act. Most of these part-day public holidays have been observed for many years, and I have been advised that there have not been dire industrial consequences arising in New South Wales before or since the introduction of the current national industrial relations system.

The question has been raised about annual leave when these part-day public holidays occur. Section 89 of the commonwealth Fair Work Act states that when an employee takes paid annual leave and this leave includes a day or part day that is a public holiday, the employee is taken not to be on paid annual leave on that public holiday.

The term 'that public holiday' can surely only mean between the hours of 7pm and 12 midnight on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. It should have the effect of not being annual leave for those workers who would have ordinarily been required to work after 7pm on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. This is no different to how other public holidays are treated when a worker is on annual leave.

Questions have also been raised about public holiday provisions in several modern awards and enterprise agreements. Of the examples regarding the potential conflict between state law and industrial instruments, again I direct members to the fact that the national industrial relations system, within which modern awards and enterprise agreements sit, clearly contemplates that some public holidays will be part-day public holidays.

I am advised that workers will be paid in accordance with the relevant industrial instruments. Most modern awards prescribe a public holiday penalty rate of double time and a half. This will generally not equate to a full 150 per cent more than what employers are paying now because working after 7pm on a weeknight usually attracts an additional penalty in any event.

In some years, Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve will fall on a weekend. Saturday and Sunday rates can be anywhere between time and a half and double time, therefore the increased rates of pay when the public holiday starts at 7pm will be less again.

The Australian Hotels Association has been one of the loudest opponents of the proposed part-day public holidays, yet its South Australian members remain subject to special provisions until 1 January 2015 that allow them to continue to pay casual staff a flat rate for all hours worked, including on public holidays.

I do not think it is too presumptuous to suggest that for many years the local hotel industry has predominately engaged casual employees on weekends and public holidays for this very reason, and we can presume they will continue to do so until 2015.

From 2015, our hotels will fully go on to the Hospitality Modern Award, and casuals will receive a similar penalty rate structure to full-time and part-time workers. However, the casual rate of pay will be reduced from a 50 per cent loading down to a 25 per cent loading, so this will not automatically mean extra wage costs.

I would also like to remind members that this bill will considerably reduce administrative processes for businesses seeking exemptions to shop trading hours by amending the Shop Trading Hours Act to extend the maximum extension period from 14 days to 30 days. The 14-day limitation has led to excessive amounts of paperwork over extended holiday periods, such as the Christmas/New Year/Australia Day period, during which sometimes up to four exemption certificates are required to be issued to cover the entire period.

Over the 2011 December public holiday period, over 300 retail premises were granted exemptions from the Shop Trading Hours Act. This government recognises that the current exemption processes can be a hindrance to businesses. By streamlining the extension process and removing time-consuming and repetitive administrative processes, this bill will allow retailers to focus their resources on their core business requirements during busy trading periods.

The bill will also allow the Minister for Industrial Relations to grant a single exemption to all or a majority of shops in a proclaimed shopping district. This will remove the requirement for non-exempt shops to individually apply for exemptions and allows the minister to grant blanket exemptions across proclaimed shopping districts at special times of the year, such as Christmas, for a maximum period of 30 days, again, reducing red tape for both retailers and administrators. These administrative amendments were developed to address the Productivity Commission's and the Competition Council's recommendations to improve South Australia's shop trading hours legislation by significantly reducing the time and resources that non-exempt shops invest in applying for exemptions.

Finally, I would like to address the criticism that this bill is a package. This bill is, indeed, an essential part of a package—a reform package to revitalise Adelaide by maintaining the values that are most important to South Australians. The bill does this in a very basic way:

It deregulates shop trading hours in the CBD tourist precinct on most public holidays.

It provides workers with protection entitlements who are requested to work after 7pm on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.

It reduces red tape for retailers.

This bill is part of a package to regenerate the City of Adelaide. It balances the desire for increased economic activity with maintaining our community values and the expectations we share about acknowledging the days that are important to South Australians.

I give particular thanks and acknowledgment to the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. Kelly Vincent and the Hon. Tammy Franks of the Greens for their preparedness to discuss their concerns about this bill and to negotiate with the government in the best interests of the State of South Australia to reach a compromise to enable the successful passage of this bill through the council. I also particularly acknowledge the Hon. John Darley, who negotiated with the government over a considerable amount of time which resulted in the amendment from 5pm to 7pm. I thank all those members for their contribution. I reinforce again that this bill seeks to create a modern, vibrant and competitive South Australia, and I commend it to members.

Bill read a second time.

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