- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 17 November 2004
Shops and Industries Amendment (Special Shop Closures) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 4 of 48
| Next Item »
Page: 13022
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 10 November.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.14 a.m.]: This feels like Ground Hog Day, because this is exactly the same bill as that introduced in 1999. Boxing Day fell on a Sunday in 1999 and it will do so again this year. As a result, the Government has introduced the same bill and for the same reason—to keep the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association [SDA] happy. This is the Government's payoff to the biggest union aligned to the right-wing faction of the Australian Labor Party [ALP]. The honourable member for Swansea is prepared to vote in support of a payoff to a right-wing union. Let that be recorded by the left-wing caucus.
This bill will limit retail trading on 26 December—Boxing Day. The Government will claim that the legislation is designed to ensure that employees have Sunday off to spend with their families. In his second reading speech the Minister hypocritically said that it was about family values and that it would allow family time. This Government does nothing to promote family values or to help families. It is the highest taxing Government in the country but it does not allow people to catch a train to get home to their families on time. Suddenly Boxing Day is a sacred day for families. It is not and that is not the reason for the Government's attitude. If the retail shops that are being restricted and forcibly closed by this legislation were allowed to operate they would use volunteer labour. Only volunteers would work and they would get the full award payment for working on a public holiday and a Sunday. Boxing Day workers earn more money on that day than on any other day of the year. They would make more money on that day than they would by working three ordinary days. Plenty of employees are prepared to work.
This legislation has been introduced because the SDA does not want employees making voluntary agreements with their employer because it believes that is outside the award and that it will undermine its role. The SDA is a good union; no-one is criticising it for not doing its job. It is not in the same category as the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. However, that does not automatically make its policies good, and this is not a good policy. The Opposition opposed the 1999 legislation and it opposes this legislation. It believes that employees should have freedom of choice and that they should make the decision about whether they volunteer for Sunday work and not have it imposed as a legislative fiat by this Government.
The SDA did not bother either this year or in 1999 to go to the Industrial Relations Commission [IRC] to have the award amended to designate Boxing Day as a non-opening day. It could have made an application to the IRC, but it has not bothered. It simply asked the Government to pass legislation to achieve its aim. Other unions that are not as big and powerful or do not make such massive financial contributions to the ALP must go to the State or the Federal Industrial Relations Commission to make applications for award variations and serve logs of claims on employers—in this case on the big department stores—and argue their case. Not the SDA, because it is the biggest union in the State and it is making big financial contributions to the ALP. No, it gets an Act of Parliament.
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: What great service!
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The honourable member for Swansea commends that service. Let it be acknowledged that he supports these special interest groups, especially those aligned to the right wing. My main objection is the hypocrisy underlying this measure. The SDA refers to family values—
Ms Kristina Keneally: Yes.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The honourable member for Heffron is correct in that the union has tried to do something for families in respect of working hours, family relief and family leave. It has also tried to do something about taxation policies that impact on families. They are positives for the SDA, and I freely acknowledge that. As I said, it is a good union, but that does not make all its policies good policies. I believe, and the Government has presented no evidence to the contrary, that this legislation will not ensure workers do not work on the Sunday. If that were the case, there would not be a long list of exemptions, which includes: audio shops; bookshops; chemist shops; confectioners shops; cooked food shops—that is, cake and pastry shops; cooked provision shops; refreshment shops; restaurants; takeaway food shops; fruit shops; flower shops; fruit and vegetable shops; garden and plant shops; newsagencies; pet shops; souvenir shops; tobacconists; vehicle service shops; vehicle shops; and video shops. Workers in those shops cannot expect to get Boxing Day off, but workers in big department stores cannot work.
What is the difference? Big department stores are unionised and the local video shop is not unionised. The Shop Assistants Union does not have members working casually behind the counter at the Botany video shop but it has lots of members working behind the counter at David Jones, Woolworths and Coles. Trade unions have always been strong in big organisations but not in small business. One cannot claim to be protecting family values when a huge variety of shops, including shops in designated tourist areas are okay but somehow or other some shops are awful, wicked and members cannot work in them.
This legislation divides the shopping industry into two categories and applies family values to one category but not the other. It is significant that union members work in big shops and therefore this legislation will ensures that union members tow the union line and do not make voluntary agreements. The one thing every trade union in this country fears is that employees will enter into individual contracts with employees and employers. The issue that the Federal Government will address before or after 1 July 2005 is individual contracts for employees that is already provided for in the Federal Workplace Relations Act but presumably will be extended by the Federal Government. In relation to employees making agreements with employers, a Sunday paper report said that the Premier is considering offering individual contracts to railway workers if they go out on strike and obey the union rather than Vince Graham and Michael Costa. Our Premier is looking at the Federal Workplace Relations Act passed by Peter Reith to ensure that he can offer individual contracts.
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: That's not true and you know it!
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The honourable member for Swansea interjects and says, "That's not true" but let us wait and find out whether the railway system is brought to its knees; whether the State Government is anxious to try to demonise the union, rather than be demonised itself, and tries to break the union. Labor governments have tried to break unions in the past. Which government deregistered the Builders Labourers Federation? It was a Labor government. Which government took on the miners union in the great coal strike? It was a Labor government. Which government broke the pilots strike? It was the Hawke Labor Government. Labor governments are quite happy to smash trade unions when it suits them and yet, at other times, of course, they introduce special Acts of Parliament to keep unions happy.
It is a schizophrenic approach but, significantly, an approach that will deny the public the opportunity to shop on Boxing Day. The Thursday before Good Friday is the biggest shopping day of the year. What is the second biggest shopping day of the year? As the honourable member for Lane Cove who takes a great interest in these matters will attest, it is Boxing Day. On Boxing Day the post-Christmas specials are on sale on the biggest single day of the year for shops to be closed. The most rewarding day for employees who would get double time on Sunday and double time for public holiday is Boxing Day, and the shops will be closed. Who will benefit? Not the worker, not the family but the leadership of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association who can go to members and say, "We are looking after union members and union conditions."
The Opposition opposes this legislation for the same reasons it opposed it in 1999, which is before the honourable member for Heffron and the honourable member for Campbelltown were even in the Chamber, but, nonetheless, they are reliving part of the great history of this House. They can vote, as can the honourable member for Swansea, for a good right-wing union, making sure the law looks after itself.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [10.25 a.m.]: The Shop and Industries Amendment (Special Shop Closures) Bill might as well have been called the Bah-Humbug Bill 2004, for that is exactly the effect it will have for many employers and employees throughout New South Wales. This bill seeks to limit trading on 26 December, Boxing Day, which this year falls on a Sunday. The Government will claim it is to ensure employees have Sunday off to spend with their families. In fact, this legislation is yet another attempt by the Labor Government to push the union barrow. This bill limits trade for all retail outlets on Boxing Day this year except for those businesses in designated tourist areas and for those businesses scheduled in the Shops and Industries Act 1962.
Businesses that operate in designated tourist areas can operate as normal to allow for holiday areas to make the most of the tourist season on and around Christmas and Boxing days. The bill will result in confusion over which shops are allowed to trade and which are not. In fact, it is already resulting in confusion before it has even passed because of the inability of the industrial relations ministry to get the message through to the Office of Industrial Relations so that it can best advise businesses of their rights and responsibilities. The bill has come about due to the paranoia of the union, which is determined to stop the prevalence of enterprise agreements between employers and employees. The Howard Government has done a wonderful job in deregulating the employment market and providing much-needed jobs and assistance to many small businesses.
Mr Brad Hazzard: Lowest unemployment we have had in years.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: The honourable member for Wakehurst is correct when he says that we have the lowest level of unemployment in many years thanks to the Howard Government, but no thanks to the New South Wales Government. The union sees the employees' freedom to bargain with an employer the conditions under which they will work on special days as a threat to its power over the industry. If an employee wants to work on Boxing Day, make a bit of extra money on penalty rates and enjoy the fast-paced environment of post-Christmas sales, it should be well within that employee's rights to do so. It is a great opportunity on those days with loading for many people who factor it into their family budgets to pay for Christmas and/or their holidays.
Like any other religious holiday, if employees do not wish to work on that day, they should be able to negotiate with their employer to have the day off to spend with their family or observe their specific religious traditions. If an employer has a moral objection to having staff working on that day, either because of its significance as a Sunday or its holiday status as Boxing Day he or she may, lease conditions providing, choose to close a shop on that day and roster off staff. Instead, the union has decided that this level of freedom in the workplace is uncalled for, and is a threat to the unionised bargaining that currently formulate working conditions in the retail sector.
To the union, the thought of employers sitting down with their employees and calmly discussing who does and who does not want to work on Boxing Day is horrendous. No union involvement, no representative from a group of which none of the employees is likely to be a member, just plain, unencumbered discussion to determine who would like the chance to earn that little bit more for their own post-Christmas shopping. The unions, quite rightly, see it as a threat to their power in the workplace. If no-one needs them to interfere anymore they start to lose their relevance. But one group needs them; one group will stand by them in their darkest hour. When employees start to gain independence and start to realise they can negotiate with their employer without a union, one group will stand by the unions to try to stop that level of freedom occurring in the workplace, that is, the Australian Labor Party—the centralised Marxist totalitarian workplace conditions that are imposed by this union-dominated State Government.
So once again we are debating a bill that has been custom written for the union movement by the union movement, many officers of which represent electorates in this House. The outstanding shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, and wonderful honourable member for Gosford and I discussed Erina. Erina is a commercial district in Gosford. Under this bill Erina is exempt because it is a designated tourist area. Realistically, Erina has few tourist destinations and the key tourist area is the suburb of Terrigal next door. We all understand that Erina is a vibrant, progressive commercial district but if the Government were serious about imposing these bans it would extend them to areas like Erina.
Employees of Erina Fair, which is the largest shopping centre on the Central Coast, will gain no supposed benefit from this legislation. The bill allows them to work, while colleagues in Gosford, or in the second-largest shopping centre, Westfield Tuggerah, in the honourable member's electorate, are not allowed to work. The legislation has major competitive implications for these two shopping centres, which are only 40 minutes travel apart. One is allowed to stay open, the other is not. One will be allowed to hold post Christmas Boxing Day sales, the other will be forced to close. Once again, we see policy on the run by this Carr Government. It is a disgrace.
Mr Thomas George: What's new?
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Exactly. As the honourable member for Lismore, "What's new?" It is another slapshot effort by the union-controlled and dominated New South Wales division of the Australian Labor Party to force through and rumble through dodgy legislation. But the Government clearly is not fully committed to this legislation. If it were it would probably have investigated the implications of the legislation for various communities, such as Erina and Tuggerah. The Coalition proudly believes it should be the right of individual shop owners and operators to decide whether to open to trade on Boxing Day. They should not have a decision forced upon them because the Carr Government wishes once again to roll over and pander to the union movement.
If this Government were fair dinkum about giving shop employees a break on Boxing Day, it would close down every establishment in New South Wales in line with closures on Christmas Day. Under this legislation, cinemas, hotels, public transport, newspapers, radio stations and pet stores can all open. Instead, once again, the Carr Government is picking on small, medium and large retailers selling non-essential goods and services. This is another death blow to small business and medium-size business in New South Wales. These days it seems the message that is going around the business community is: the last person leaving New South Wales should turn out the lights. Unfortunately, we do not have lights any more because, as we all know, the electricity infrastructure is in such an appalling state that we have rolling blackouts.
Mr Brad Hazzard: Blackout Bob.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: As the honourable member for Wakehurst says, Blackout Bob. The honourable member for Wakehurst is spot on. It will not be a question of switching out the lights; the last small or medium-size business leaving New South Wales will have to blow out the candle. The Carr Government clearly is not dedicated to this legislation, which is designed as an olive branch for the unions. The Coalition proudly will not support the bill. Once again, the message goes out from the Coalition in New South Wales that it will back the workers all the way to have the freedom to make up their minds whether or not they will work on Boxing Day or on any other holiday. They should not be dictated to by a small union elite the members of whom probably have never worked a day in their lives—the left, the unreconstructed Marxists—but who seem to dominate large segments of the union movement. This is an opportunity for the Government in New South Wales to support the sensible planning and progressive ideology that the Coalition puts forward, and oppose the bill.
Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of the finalist students, along with their teachers and parents, in the Christmas card competition held annually by the honourable member for Kogarah. I also extend congratulations to Miss Demi Kovacs from St Gabriel's Primary School, Bexley, on having won the competition.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY (Heffron) [10.34 a.m.]: I have to be honest, I did not intend to speak in this debate but, given some of the appalling statements made by those opposite, I feel compelled to speak. Before I do that, I congratulate the students from the Kogarah electorate. I recently had the pleasure of working with the honourable member for Kogarah as the speaker in her high schools debate. I look forward to seeing many students back here in a few years time sitting in these very seats and participating in the fine schools debate that the honourable member for Kogarah holds every year. Congratulations to the card competition winners. I look forward to receiving a card from the honourable member for Kogarah and seeing their fine designs.
To return to the legislation at hand, the honourable member for Gosford spoke about family values. It should be remembered that the family values that this legislation seeks to uphold are not just for the families of the workers, because it sends a message to all families in New South Wales. Do we really wish to encourage the type of society where the day after Christmas the most important thing to do is get up and be at the door of David Jones or Myers standing in line for two hours, waiting for the shop to open?
Mr Chris Hartcher: It is individual choice.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: It is choice, but we are leaders in this State and we have a decision to make about what kind of society we want to encourage. Do we want to encourage a society where maybe Boxing Day is a day to spend with one's family? Maybe it is a day to spend on recreation. Maybe it is a day to spend on community service. It should not be a day when people get up at 6.00 a.m., put on their runners, go down to Myer, wait for those doors to open, rush in and elbow out other buyers just to get 20 per cent off a pair of sheets or cutlery. The message that this legislation sends is that we are not a society whose primary concern is commercialisation, consumerism and materialism; we are a society that values time set aside for family and community. On Boxing Day I go to my aunt and uncle's house and we have another family gathering.
Ms Gladys Berejiklian: That is your choice.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: It is my choice.
Ms Gladys Berejiklian: And my choice is to go shopping with my sister.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: I could make some comments about where the honourable member for Willoughby should be shopping but I will not. I have some knowledge of the American experience, which is rampant consumerism. I think it would be regrettable to see New South Wales go down that same path: shops open 24 hours, in-your-face consumerism, encouragement of what leads to consumer happiness, such as getting 50 per cent off a set of china.
Mr Brad Hazzard: It would make me happy.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: You have a very sad and shallow life. The honourable member for Gosford was also quite taken with the situation of workers in video shops in Botany. The honourable member for Gosford first of all could not work out that the name of my electorate is Heffron. But let us talk about casual workers in places like video shops. Those workers need flexible and affordable child care. What is the Federal Government doing about that family value? Workers in video shops need access to a bulk-billing general practitioner. What is the Federal Government doing to support that family value? What about the Federal Government's immigration policies? It is sending 1,000 people a week to Sydney, making it difficult for those workers in video shops to find meaningful employment.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY: When it comes to family values, those opposite need to talk to their Federal counterparts, because there are far more pressing needs for families in this State that the Federal Government needs to be supporting. The words of members opposite drip with hypocrisy when they talk about workers having the right to earn penalty rates. Those members opposite consistently oppose penalty rates. It is utterly ridiculous for Opposition members to stand up in this Chamber and say that shops should be open on Boxing Day so that people can have the choice to earn their penalty rates. If members on the other side had their way people would not even be able to get those penalty rates.
The honourable member for Gosford asked what is so crucial about having a video shop open on Boxing Day. I acknowledge that my next comment is a little tongue in cheek. I am the mother of a four-year-old and a six-year-old and I think the honourable member for Gosford has not been in a situation where at about 4 o'clock on Boxing Day—having enjoyed a lot of time with one's children, having spent a lot of time playing—the batteries have run out, everyone is tired, the children are full of lollies and sweets and the most family-friend thing one can think of doing is shuffling off to the video shop, getting a video, popping it in the VCR and sitting down together and watching the video. I support the bill, which I commend to the House.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [10.40 a.m.]: I support the Coalition's opposition to the bill. However, I recognise that there are arguments for and against this measure, and that some of those arguments have been put forward by Government members. New South Wales is better placed to move forward if employers are able to negotiate freely with employees with a view to creating business opportunities right across the board. Whether shops should open on Boxing Day is a question worthy of debate, but it should not be determined on the basis that the Labor Government has the numbers, as will be the case with this bill. As the honourable member for Gosford said, it seems to Opposition members that the bill is driven more by union imperatives than by the imperatives of shoppers or those who could be working voluntarily on Boxing Day.
I am quite sure that the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association has done some good things for workers. I recognise that from time to time unions do good things for workers. I have no personal and immediate prejudice against unions. My grandfather was a tramways shop steward in Victoria. I acknowledge that at various times in our history the union movement has proved itself capable of bringing about change where there was an unlevel playing field. But times have moved on. That is why, these days, the union movement is struggling to get workers to join unions. These days, most employers recognise the value of their employees, and they know that if they want their businesses to be nurtured and grow there must be a good relationship with employees. In effect, there needs to be a de facto partnership between employers and employees.
Legislation such as that before the House, which imposes constraints on employers and employees and prevents them from pursuing common goals of a partnership, such as discussing what will happen on Boxing Day, is not a sensible way for any government to go. In my youth I had a number of jobs as I went through school and university. I worked in the retail sector. I worked in menswear shops. I worked as a cleaner and I worked as a garbage man at Manly hospital. I also worked in a garage. I appreciated the opportunity to get work over the Christmas period in a whole range of businesses. Fortunately, I did not have to suffer constraints such as those that the Carr Government now seeks to impose on employers and employees. As a student who needed money to get through my courses, I would have had fewer opportunities to earn it if the Carr Government had been around at that time.
It is a bit ironic, as well as simplistic, for Labor members to acknowledge that it is all right to have a system that allows some shops to open, where some employees and employers will have to address some issues about working and opening on Boxing Day, but prohibits others from opening. What is the logic behind the Carr Labor Government deciding that it is unacceptable for some to open on Boxing Day but it is acceptable for others, for example, in designated tourist areas? Obviously, I represent an area that borders the Manly tourist area. I spend a lot of my time in Manly, and shops there will not be affected by this legislation. They will be able to open on Boxing Day. Why must the people who own, operate and work in those shops have rules that are different from the rules that apply, for example, to the Warringah Mall shopping area?
I acknowledge that it is important—as the honourable member for Heffron said somewhat light-heartedly—that families who do not want their loved ones to be working on Boxing Day should not have to be without those loved ones on that day. This year Boxing Day occurs on Sunday, which is a sacred time and a day on which families that want to go to church should be able to do so. They should be able to express their beliefs, come together as families and enjoy the afterglow of Christmas Day. It is crazy that a Labor government would want to impose shopping constraints on people who would like to do something different from what I do, or on those who want to express their religious belief but also will want to shop, or on all other folks who want to enjoy their Boxing Day differently.
As the honourable member for Heffron said, Christmas is a wonderful and sacred time, but it also places considerable demands on families. But, when Boxing Day comes round, families should have a choice about what they will do on that day. Twenty or thirty years ago shops did not remain open at 12 o'clock on Saturdays and there was no Thursday night shopping. I do not think any person now under the age of about 20 years would believe that New South Wales was like that. We have moved on from those times, and people now have the choice to go shopping if they want to, or do whatever things they choose to do on those days. So why is it that Bob Carr will put artificial shackles on businesses and employees who would want to celebrate Boxing Day in a way that the honourable member for Heffron does not particularly want to do?
The honourable member wants to be with her family and, if she chooses, go and get a video and sit down with the family and watch it. That is her choice, and no-one on this side would say that is not an appropriate choice for the honourable member for Heffron. On the other hand, if the Coalition were in government and said it had decided that all video shops should close on Boxing Day and the honourable member will not be able to get a video on that day, she would be the first to jump up and down and say, quite rightly, that our behaviour was archaic and artificial.
I do not understand the logic of the bill. Everyone on the Opposition side understands the logic of major shops closing on Christmas Day, because that is a sacred day for Judeo-Christian communities. Even acknowledging that there have been vast changes and that these days ours is a multicultural society, we still retain that essential entitlement to recognise Christmas Day as a very special day in our calendar, or to celebrate it in other, different ways. If we are Christian, we celebrate it with an emphasis on Christ and his birth. Those of another background may celebrate it solely as a day for the family. Some of my very close friends who pursue other religious beliefs still observe it as a family day.
Members of the Liberal Party and The Nationals have no problem recognising that Christmas Day should be preserved as a very special day. But with Boxing Day it is different. Even though my background has a personal perspective of a grandfather who was a shop steward in the Victorian tramways, and even though I have a historical understanding of unions, I recognise that we have moved on. It seems to me that the Carr Government has not recognised that. Recently there was some toing and froing about the policies of the Howard Government. Regardless of whether the community accepts every aspect of the Howard Government's policies, the Federal industrial structure provides much freer system, which has produced a booming economy. If the Labor Party were in government, business and enterprise development would be constrained federally.
The unions and the Labor Party should rethink the way in which they have gone about this. Bearing in mind that I am not anti union per se, I must say that unions adopt a heavy-handed approach to awards. Recently, when I looked at the clerical officer's award to give some advice to a constituent, I could not believe that the union has the right to march into premises in New South Wales to determine whether individual employees are getting their dinner packages, even though all the employees in a small business are not members of the union and do not want the union anywhere near them. Unions certainly have a place, but it is not in every small business in New South Wales. The Government should recognise that choice and opportunity are essential to New South Wales going forward. The bill takes away choice on Boxing Day and that is wrong. The Labor Government is wrong in the way in which it allows the unions to—
Ms Gladys Berejiklian: Ride roughshod over them.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Yes, and to interrupt the flow of business, relationships and partnerships between employers and employees. These days most businesses are a partnership between employers and employees. If the bill had not been introduced I would support the concept of employees being able to volunteer to choose to work on Boxing Day. They should not be forced to work on Boxing Day, which follows our most holy and special day of the year. Families should be able to make choices. However, the bill does not provide choice, it hammers those who want to work and who want to open their businesses. It is wrong.
Mr WAYNE MERTON (Baulkham Hills) [10.52 a.m.]: Although the bill deals with aspects of the every day life of Australians, it actually revolves around the principle of whether in 2004 people should be given the opportunity to make a choice or whether the State Government, which is dictated to by a trade union, will control what they may do with their lives on Boxing Day. As everyone knows, Boxing Day follows a very important day in the Christian calendar, Christmas Day, the celebration of the birth of Christ, the fundamental event of the whole Christian church. Historically and religiously Boxing Day has no real significance, apart from being another public holiday. It might be folklore, but I understand that Boxing Day was so named because it was the day on which people opened their presents in boxes. It does not matter whether I know the significance of Boxing Day, and looking around the Chamber I would suggest that no-one, including those on the Government benches, know what Boxing Day is about except that in Sydney it is the day on which the Sydney to Hobart yacht race starts and cricket matches are played.
Boxing Day is a public holiday. It is part of the Christmas celebrations. Christians and others celebrate Christmas Day. The Labor Party is doing the bidding of the union movement, which attracts something like a 20 per cent membership of workers in this State. Their constituency has fallen. The bill is a belated attempt by the Labor Party to score points with the trade union movement. But it is probably too late because if they had a solid vote from the union movement federally Mark Latham, God forbid, would be Prime Minister today. By and large union members disowned the Labor Party. They walked away from and betrayed Labor in the recent Federal election. If honourable members think I am joking they need only consider that the Labor Council of New South Wales now calls itself Unions New South Wales. Significantly, notwithstanding the usual problems with trains that could lead to an industrial dispute and result in gridlock for New South Wales, the union movement has decided to rename the Labor Council as Unions New South Wales.
The bill provides that people who have set up large shopping centres in this State, such as the Westfield, Westpoint and Stockland malls, will be penalised. Those malls may be owned by big companies, but many of the businesses in these complexes are run by mums and dads. They will become victims of the legislation. The bill provides a specific exemption for small shops such as video shops, newsagencies and chemists. Will a video store in the middle of Westfield Parramatta, one of the biggest shopping centres in the world, or the newsagency next door, or the chemist elsewhere in the complex, or similar businesses in Chatswood or the Heffron electorate, open for business on Boxing Day? Will shopping centre management be forced to have security people available and to run the lighting and airconditioning for only two or three shops? Those opposite do not know the answer, and just like us they will have to wait to see what happens on Boxing Day. I suggest that the centres will not be open. A video shop, a newsagency or a chemist in large shopping complexes will not open.
Honourable members opposite may laugh, but they should remember that if they seek medical attention they might need to exercise their right to go to their friendly pharmacist. If that pharmacy is a one-man band that happens to be in the middle of the local Westfield complex it will be in darkness. Will shopping centre management sustain additional costs and overheads if the shopping centre opens for only a handful of shops that are exempt from the provisions in the bill? Christmas is a great time for celebration. The honourable member for Heffron, in her more lucid moments, said that she sometimes likes to go shopping after the kids have had enough. I have seen it: the batteries go flat on Boxing Day, everyone is tired and cranky, and they want a video. I suggest that is a fairly accurate assessment of what happens. Many of us have kids and I have grandchildren. A lot of mothers—
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Are you a mother?
Mr WAYNE MERTON: The honourable member might be an old woman, but he certainly is not a mother. Christmas Day puts a lot of pressure on a lot of people because they meet people they do not meet normally and sometimes they meet people they do not want to meet. I know what Christmas Day is like. I have gone into our Christmas luncheon and looked around the table and said, "Who are all these people?" My wife brings friends from her church and people who have nowhere else to go to our Christmas lunch. While that is really wonderful, I have to say that there is a little bit of pressure associated with Christmas Day. When Boxing Day comes round, people are quite often happy to leave the house. The Labor Government does not appear to understand that—although the honourable member for Heffron acknowledges that that is the situation. On Boxing Day people watch the start of the Sydney to Hobart yacht race or watch the opening day of a test match. When Boxing Day comes round, Christmas is behind us and we are just getting into the holiday spirit. The relatives go back to Dubbo, Mudgee or Parkes, and people feel like getting out of the house.
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Yes!
Mr WAYNE MERTON: The honourable member for Swansea feels that way. However, I suspect his neighbours want him to leave his house! People take the opportunity afforded by the Boxing Day holiday to grab the kids and go down to the local Westfield shopping centre, for example.
Ms Kristina Keneally: You have never been to a Westfield with children, have you?
Mr WAYNE MERTON: I come from the western suburbs. Westfield shopping centres are a social focal point in Parramatta, as is Castle Towers in The Hills electorate. People take their children down to their local shopping centre because it is airconditioned, it is nice and cool, and they can have a cup of tea after they have had a look around for bargains.
Mr Thomas George: That is the only reason people bother to shop.
Mr WAYNE MERTON: But that is what this Government is about to destroy. Little Johnny may have a problem with a toy because the battery has gone flat. A toy that was purchased at Kmart or Myer may not be working. Sometimes little kids cannot wait until the day after Boxing Day to exchange it—they need an immediate reaction. Kids who received three sets of Thomas the Tank Engine for Christmas want to exchange two for something different. This Government is callously and cruelly denying parents the opportunity to exchange the unwanted toys and to buy new batteries, which would make the kids' Christmas complete. The Labor Government should think seriously about that. It is a pity these kids cannot vote—but the good news is that their parents can! That is good news for the Coalition and bad news for the Government!
In the Government's efforts to satisfy the trade union movement in New South Wales, it has betrayed hundreds of thousands of children in New South Wales. They will not be able to exchange unwanted toys on Boxing Day. In addition, people will not be able to make purchases at special prices, such as Christmas decorations that can be stored until next year. Apart from the more light-hearted issues, the Government is fundamentally denying people a choice. Once again, the Carr Labor Government has sold out its principles to satisfy the union movement. The Carr Labor Government does not care because its union masters and fundraisers have said that they do not want ordinary members of the Labor Party doing deals with bosses. That is anathema to the Labor Party.
I have news for the Carr Labor Government: The Coalition opposes that point of view. We believe that it is the right of ordinary people to do deals with their bosses. Coalition philosophy is steeped in freedom of choice, freedom of competition, private enterprise and enterprise agreements. That is what persuaded the people of Australia to elect the Howard Government for four consecutive terms. On the fourth Saturday in March 2007, the people of New South Wales will give the Labor Party the flick, just as the people of Australia gave Mark Latham the flick in the October Federal election.
Mr MATTHEW MORRIS (Charlestown) [11.03 a.m.]: I support the Shops and Industries Amendment (Special Shop Closures) Bill. I had not intended to participate in this debate, but while I was attending to electorate matters, I heard garbled messages on the internal broadcast system about Australian workplace agreements [AWAs].
Mr Thomas George: Point of order—
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): I hope this is a serious point of order. What standing order has been breached?
Mr Thomas George: My point of order relates to relevance. I did not have a list of speakers for this debate, so members have come into the Chamber to participate in the debate having heard what has been said by members on the Government side.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! There is no point of order.
Mr MATTHEW MORRIS: Some of the comments related to AWAs and freedom of choice. If the point of view adopted by the Opposition is taken to its logical conclusion, why would shops not be open on Christmas Day?
Ms Kristina Keneally: That is a good point.
Mr MATTHEW MORRIS: Yes. The Coalition would not support shops opening on Christmas Day and Anzac Day, yet it insists that the fundamental principle underlying its resistance to this bill is its support for freedom of choice. Would Coalition members support people working on Christmas Day? No, they would not. What is really frustrating about this debate and individual work place agreements is that people are prepared to stab each other in the back to get ahead, yet the Opposition talks about choice. If Opposition members and I were competing in the same working environment for the same opportunities and the same hours of work, under the Opposition's system of AWAs all I would need to do is tell the employer that I will do the same job for $30 a week less.
AWAs will have a tremendously negative impact on the workplace, they will create aggression and the consequential antisocial behaviour characterised by individuals fighting and arguing against each other for the scarce employment opportunities that are available. The underlying rationale for this bill is family values. I must declare a slight conflict of interest. My wife usually works on Sundays. I assure the honourable member for Lismore that when she finds that she will not have to work on a Sunday she will be over the moon. My wife and I will have an opportunity to spend more time with our two young children and with members of our extended families, which is eminently appropriate over the Christmas season.
The Opposition has called for freedom of choice by having every retail outlet open on Boxing Day. That will have an impact on household debt, which no-one has discussed during this debate. As all honourable members know, household debt has reached record levels. Most people go shopping and most people are consumers of goods and services. In the majority of cases, goods and services are paid for by credit cards. The Federal Government persists in refusing to curtail household debt by enforcing the obligations of banks and financial institutions to reduce household debt by ensuring that consumers are aware of the risks involved in significant debt accumulation. Many people have incurred debts that they will never be able to repay, but they will go shopping, load up the credit card and endeavour to pay it off over the ensuing 12 months. That is a matter of grave concern to me. This bill is appropriate because its message is clear: The Carr Government wants to ensure that families have ample opportunity to spend time together and share the joy and excitement of Christmas, particularly families with young children. The Government also wants to provide people with an opportunity to spend time at home and enjoy the company of their families.
The Opposition's fundamental argument is choice. Let us talk about choice in accessing health services and choice in accessing general practitioners who do not bulk-bill. Not too long ago the Federal Government put a gun to people's heads, forcing them into the private health insurance sector. I remember clearly the campaign advertisements run by the Federal Government that people must have private health insurance or they would be slugged an additional surcharge on their Medicare contributions. If that was not a threat, I do not know what is. Today the Opposition preaches choice. Sorry, it cannot have it both ways. The Opposition either supports giving people a choice of their medical providers or it does not. Or does the Opposition want to run the line of its Federal colleagues, and hold a gun to people's heads whilst pulling services from the community?
This is an important bill and I am happy to support it. The bill provides an opportunity for families, whose members may be employed in certain shops, to be together on Christmas Day and Boxing Day. I support the bill and I am sure that most members of this Chamber will take full advantage of the opportunity to spend time with their families on Boxing Day. It is understood and accepted that certain services need to be available on Boxing Day, and the bill provides a real opportunity to send a clear message to the community that in the interests of family well-being the Government wants to ensure that that day is available for people to maximise that opportunity. Families are encouraged to share special time with one another on Boxing Day.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [11.11 a.m.]: I oppose the Shops and Industries Amendment (Special Shop Closures) Bill. If the main argument of Government members in support of the bill is for workers to have an opportunity to be with their families on Boxing Day, I am dismayed as to why they do not obligate the mandatory closure of retail outlets when Boxing Day falls on a week day. Why is it only when Boxing Day falls on a Sunday that the Carr Government deems it fit to introduce this bill? I reiterate some points raised by my colleagues about giving families, workers and retailers a choice on Boxing Day. I am fortunate to represent a part of Sydney that has a strong retail culture. I know that many people enjoy spending Boxing Day with their families at the shops; that is a choice they have and expect to have.
That is an option that my sisters and I take. It is the one day of the year on which we go shopping together. That is a choice we have and a choice we would like to keep. I find it difficult to comprehend the rationale and arguments posed by the Government on this matter. It seems to me that the Government's arguments are rather flimsy. The Government's arguments highlight the real purpose of the bill, which, it seems to me, is for the Government to placate the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association [SDAEA], the largest union in New South Wales. The SDAEA is the most significant union in the right-wing faction of the Australian Labor Party. Clearly, the SDAEA is concerned to maintain the award system and is opposed to retail stores opening on Boxing Day. It is concerned that, as volunteer labour would be used, employees would be making direct agreements with their employer. That matter is almost unacceptable to the association.
I respect the comments of Government members in relation to that time of year being a time to spend with families. We all respect and support that fact. I believe in supporting the right of people to have a choice in what they do with their time, whether they choose to have time off, go shopping or work if they are employed in the retail industry. That is a point of difference between the arguments posed by the Government and those posed by the Opposition. The Opposition does not want it mandatory that people do or not do something on that day. In the Australian context, Boxing Day is not a day of overwhelming religious or political significance. People do not have strong views on what they should or should not do on that day. For me and my family, it is a day to relax and to have the option of utilising retail outlets.
On Boxing Day every year the first item on the evening news focuses on people taking advantage of the retail sales. For those people it is an enjoyable day, a day of choice. Many people find bargains they might not find on other days. Some would argue that the retail experience on Boxing Day has become part of the Australian festive season. In opposing the bill, I accept and recognise the need for people to have the opportunity to spend Boxing Day with their families, whether they are workers, retailers or neither. By the same token, it galls me to think that a bill needs to be introduced to curtail the behaviour of people on that day. Boxing Day is a special day and people should be able to choose how they spend their time on that day. As I said, I am proud of the strong retail presence in the Willoughby electorate. I will be disappointed if the bill is passed and retailers are forced to shut their doors. If the bill is passed I would not be able to walk down the main street of Chatswood on Boxing Day and see lots of people enjoying themselves. It would be desolate. I reiterate my concern about the real purpose of the bill and I reaffirm my opposition to it.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [11.16 p.m.]: I did not intend to contribute to debate on the Shops and Industries Amendment (Special Shop Closures) Bill until I heard the contribution of the honourable member for Heffron. She got far off the beaten track: she talked about the Howard Government's immigration policies and so on. I thought she was going to raise the refugee issue, for goodness sake! On hearing her contribution, I realised that the Government does not have a solid basis for introducing the bill. My realisation was confirmed when I heard the contribution of the honourable member for Charlestown, in which he spoke about household debt being at record levels. He said that therefore it was a good idea for shops to be closed on Boxing Day so that people would not be encouraged to spend more money and raise their household debt even higher.
What nonsense! In particular, the honourable member's last argument is nonsense. Is the honourable member for Charlestown suggesting that shopping is an addiction for the ordinary people of New South Wales? Is he suggesting it is an addiction akin to alcoholism, drug use or gambling, and people cannot help themselves? Is he suggesting that if shops are open on Boxing Day people will bend the plastic and spend beyond their means? That is absolute nonsense. It is clear from the paucity of arguments presented by the Government that the real reason it introduced the bill was to kowtow to the unions, in particular to Joe de Bruyn and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. It is completely reprehensible for any government in the twenty-first century to introduce a bill that will reduce the level of earnings for employees who choose to work on Boxing Day and significantly impact on the profitability of small businesses across New South Wales.
Castle Towers, which is opposite my office in Castle Hill, is the major shopping centre in my electorate. It is the most successful shopping centre, in sales revenue per square metre, in Australia. People in my electorate enjoy shopping in that fine shopping centre. I do not think too many of them are addicted to shopping or spending beyond their means, as the honourable member for Charlestown has suggested. That is nonsense. People will not be able to go to Castle Towers because David Jones, Myer, Target, Kmart, Coles and other shops will be closed. I am talking, for example, about Godfreys, the House of Fraser, Gregorys Jewellers, Rockport, Camera House and a host of other small family-owned businesses that will not be able to earn any revenue on that day. Their costs will still be the same, but they will not be able to earn any income to defray those costs on a day that traditionally is one of the biggest sales days of the year.
All Opposition members support freedom of choice. We do not believe that people should be compelled to work in a store on Boxing Day. We understand clearly that people might wish to do something else with their families—for example, going to the cricket or watching the start of the Sydney to Hobart yacht race. There are other things that people might want to do. However, for those who choose to work on that day there is no justification, other than kowtowing to the unions, for the Government to introduce this bill.
When I was at university I worked every Boxing Day at the Greengate service station in Killara. Why did I work on that day? Did the owner of the Greengate service station, Mr Jan Rosenberg, compel me to work on that day and say, "If you do not work on Boxing Day, Michael, you will not be able to work on any other day?" Not a bit of it. He asked me whether I wanted to work, I said yes and he paid double rates on that day. That was an important thing for an impecunious university student, as indeed it is for workers who are being denied an opportunity to earn money on Boxing Day. The honourable member for Charlestown said that household debt was at record levels, yet he wants to deny shop assistants the opportunity to make money over and above their normal wages on that day.
Ms Virginia Judge: Point of order: The honourable member for The Hills is misrepresenting the comments made by the honourable member for Charlestown.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! There is no point of order.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: I knew that point of order was going to be as stupid as the member herself.
Ms Virginia Judge: Mr Acting-Speaker—
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! The honourable member for Strathfield may seek the call at a later time.
Ms Virginia Judge: I ask the honourable member for The Hills to withdraw the comment that he just made. He should have addressed me as the member for Strathfield; he did not need to add the additional comments that he made. I expect him to withdraw and to apologise.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: I will not withdraw those comments. She should not take have taken a spurious point of order.
Ms Virginia Judge: It was not a spurious point of order.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: It was not a point of order.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I do not propose to allow this storm in a teacup to develop into a major issue. The honourable member for Strathfield may seek the call at a later time if she so wishes. The honourable member for The Hills has the call.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, I chose to earn money on Boxing Day. Many shop assistants feel the same way, and the Government is denying them that opportunity. Deregulated shopping hours have been in place in this State for more than 15 years. People have adapted to deregulated shopping hours and they have taken advantage of them, whether they are consumers, retailers or workers. Provided that freedom of choice prevails and workers volunteer to work on that day, I can see no justification whatsoever for denying them that opportunity.
The extraordinary thing is that the bill will allow shops in tourist areas to open, provided volunteers staff them. I do not know or understand the difference between a tourist area and any other part of the State. I think, in particular, of Western Sydney. I do not believe that Western Sydney has designated tourist areas. Once again, Western Sydney will miss out under a Labor Government that purports to represent people in that area. They will not have an opportunity to go and shop, to exchange presents, to enjoy themselves in shopping centres, if that is what they want to do, and they will not have an opportunity to earn extra money, if that is what they want to do. I strongly oppose this bill. It is abhorrent and yet another example of the Carr Labor Government kowtowing to the union movement, which is a disgrace.
Ms PETA SEATON (Southern Highlands) [11.25 a.m.]: I oppose the Shops and Industries Amendment (Special Shop Closures) Bill, which is a classic example of Labor's dinosaur command-control thinking. The Government is attempting to take us back to the days of the Iron Curtain. It is trying to tell people how to run their lives and what to do with their lives. We are in the year 2004. Australia has a prosperous economy, thanks to the policies of the Howard Government. Many people in this country have benefited from those policies. The deregulation of the workplace favours working people. People who chose to work now have choice and more opportunities. Women have been able to avail themselves of opportunities that they were not able to avail themselves of before. Increasingly workplaces and the economy have been deregulated, which is a good thing. Today the Labor Party is trying to revert to its classic old dinosaur command-control thinking.
The Government wants to be able to tell businesses, employers and working people how to spend their lives and, in this case, what they should do on Boxing Day. As a result of deregulation there have been massive gains for industrial relations, finance, workplaces and our economy. To be fair and to give credit where it is due, some of those reforms occurred under Federal Labor leaders. What are the views of those thinking members of the Labor Party about today's bill, which is nothing more than a sop to a few union bosses who run this place and the Labor Party? This bill is a sop to union bosses to give them a bit of a win. The Government is trying to save the hides of existing Labor Party union officials who are responsible for the preselection of the people in this place who sit on the government benches. We must enable people to choose what they want to do with their lives.
Businesses in this country and in this State must be able to decide when or where to open their doors. Working people must be able to decide what shifts they will work and what opportunities they will avail themselves of. Families must be able to choose when they do their shopping. In the past 20 years we have seen a revolution. People are now able to make choices that they were never able to make before. In the late 1980s and early 1990s I was employed in a job where I commenced working early in the morning and I finished at about 7.00 p.m. For a period of about two years I did not buy meat, and that was not because I was a vegetarian. The rules that had been imposed by the Labor Party specified that consumers could not buy meat from a supermarket after 6.00 p.m., which was ridiculous. So at precisely 6.00 p.m. Woolworths, Coles and other supermarkets would take meat out of their public refrigerator compartments and put it in a compartment in the storeroom. Because Labor was such a control freak it would not permit the sale of meat after 6.00 p.m., which was insane.
For a period of about two years I was not able to buy meat, which was a bad thing for meat producers and farmers. As a result of deregulation and extended shopping hours, I was then able to buy the things that I wanted to buy, if I had been in a position to do so. However, I could not do that as I was working long hours. Families, shoppers, working people and businesses are now benefiting from deregulation. We must encourage them to make those choices. Nothing in the current arrangements makes it compulsory for people to go shopping on Boxing Day. It is not compulsory for shops to open on Boxing Day. People should be able to choose. The honourable member for Strathfield, more than anyone else in this place, would know that Sydney is a multicultural city full of people who come from a diverse range of backgrounds, cultures and religions.
Not everybody observes Christmas in the way Christians do. For many people Boxing Day is just another day. The honourable member for Strathfield and the Government are trying to impose on the people of New South Wales their idea of when they should work. That is absolutely ridiculous. We should have a deregulated environment in which small businesses, which drive more than 50 per cent of employment in this State, can choose when and where they open their doors. Working people should be able to choose when and where they work and families should be able to choose when and where they do their shopping. Boxing Day is a good family day out for many people. Families do not often have the opportunity to get together and enjoy the fun and relaxation of spending a day shopping. Many people look forward to Boxing Day shopping and enjoying the benefits of deregulated shopping hours.
The Labor Party claims to represent working people, that is, everybody from professionals to tradespeople to casual staff. Working people are represented across the community spectrum. The Government is not representing working people and it is certainly not representing small businesspeople by introducing the ridiculous command-control nonsense in this bill and seeking to impose rules on free-thinking Australian as to when and where retailers can open their doors and when and where people can shop. When I was 16 years old and studying for my Higher School Certificate in the days of the Wran Government I was lucky enough to find employment in a supermarket that traded on Sundays. It was one of the few that were allowed to open because the Labor Party does not want to allow businesses the freedom of making their own decisions.
I worked weekends and Thursday nights and, as a result, saved enough money to buy a car and travel overseas every year to do necessary fieldwork as part of my university course. I earned enough money to live independently of my family when I attended university. The Labor Party would rather I had not had that opportunity. Throughout the late 1970s and early 1980s the then Labor Government resisted any deregulation of shopping and business hours and only the lucky few, including people like me, were able to grab casual Thursday night and weekend jobs. I was able to save some money that I invested in my education and used to buy a car, which gave me the freedom to take on other employment. I am proud of the fact that as a 16-year-old I had a job and that I was able to leave home at the age of 17 and be financially independent of my parents. That lifted a great burden from them.
The Labor Party would like to turn back the clock to the bad old days of full regulation. The thing about this bill that makes me really angry is that at this very minute people are standing on railway station platforms throughout Sydney, waiting for trains and wondering whether they will get to work on time. They are being held up and inconvenienced because the State Government cannot run the rail system. I wonder whether the Government does not want people to shop and work on Boxing Day because it gives it an excuse not to have to run the trains properly that day, even though it could not do that anyway. The Labor Party would be well advised to put less effort into these stupid command-control mechanisms in bills such as this and more effort into ensuring that the trains run on time, that our hospitals can treat people when they need treatment, that our schools run smoothly and that we have proper education facilities in this State. The Labor Party ought to get its priorities right. It ought to get its hands off business and working people. It should get off people's backs and let them make their decisions freely. The Government should concentrate instead on doing the things that the people of New South Wales expect it to do, that is, run the trains, the hospitals and the schools.
Mr GRAHAM WEST (Campbelltown—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.34 p.m.], in reply: I have to ask myself: What year is it? I half expected to see Governor Macquarie sailing out of the harbour, Brisbane taking his orders, and Darling being written to. This could be the House of Commons and Charles Dickens could be sitting in the public gallery, dreaming up the character of Pip. Miss Haversham could be sitting in the ladies gallery. One would think we were back in Dickensian times. We are considering the big issues of the day. The Government is giving people a day off. No wonder the honourable member for Lane Cove started his speech with the words, "Bah, humbug!" His performance was like something out of A Christmas Carol. Opposition backbenchers were sitting behind the honourable member, like Scrooge and Marley, thinking, "How can we screw the workers? How can we do them in? Well, we'll oppose them having a day with their families at Christmas."
Christmas is just one day of the year. Pity help us if we give workers three days in a row to spend with their families. The honourable member for Gosford reminded us that the same thing happened in 1999. He stood at the dispatch box and cried, like Chicken Little, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey and Turkey Lurkey followed the honourable member in the debate. They joined Chicken Little and told us that the sky will fall as a result of this bill. If the sky did not fall in 1999 and New South Wales remains the powerhouse of Australia, the sky will not fall in 2004. We will survive. People will have a holiday—what is wrong with that?
I remind Opposition members that this is not Dickensian England; this is not the 1800s. It is 2004 in Australia. I am sure that people have spoken to Opposition members about being time poor. Modern life is fast paced and it is getting faster. People lament the fact that they do not have time to spend with their families, to get reacquainted and to think things through. Here is a chance for many hardworking people who work in the retail industry to have some time off. At certain times of the year retailers in tourist areas rely on a big influx of tourists to make some money, and the Government is not denying them that opportunity. Parents who forget the sun cream for little Johnny or those who have forgotten to stock the larder will be able to go shopping.
The Government will give small towns a boost. But we are also telling retailers and workers that they can have a break. What is wrong with that? Only one Opposition member spoke to the Duties Amendment (Land Rich) Bill in the previous debate but I think six or eight Opposition members have spoken against giving workers a day off. That speaks volumes. The Labor Party listens to workers. We have been told that we are guilty of listening to workers, and we stand guilty as charged. We listen to and protect workers. We believe in families and this bill delivers family-friendly hours to workers.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 46
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Bartlett
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Mr Debus
Ms Gadiel
Mr Gaudry | Mr Gibson
Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Lynch
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Ms Nori
Mr Orkopoulos | Mrs Paluzzano
Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Mr Sartor
Mr Scully
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr West
Mr Whan
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Noes, 33
Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Mr Barr
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Brogden
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard | Mrs Hopwood
Mr Kerr
Mr Merton
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton
Mrs Skinner | Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R.W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Pair
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:43:18 : Update this page