Sensational-Adelaide.com

I agree with you Atd, but unfortunately we don't have a market in retail to let it decide. We basically have two forces (Woolies and Coles/WestFarmers) that dominate the retail landscape. That means there's an incredible inequity between employers and retail workers. In my experience, however much publicity the SDA gets, they are still pretty much complicit in the poor treatment of retail staff. Retailers pitch their wages low, don't provide benefits and if you don't like it, well their attitude is that they will find some poor sod who will put up with it. The other reason we cant leave it up to the market is anticompetitive behaviour where the two big players move in, undercut and drive out any competition, only to raise prices afterward due to no competition (no market).

The market model started to fail with the rise of mega-corporations seeking competitive advantage.

crawf wrote:I agree with AtD it should be up to businesses when they want to open not the Government/SDA.
How on earth can it be justified that traders in Glenelg and Harbourtown are allowed to open on public holidays yet the main the economic hub of the state (Adelaide CBD) has to remain shut so 'working families' can have some time off. What makes it even worse is that shops in Mt Barker, Whyalla etc are allowed to open on public holidays and have better late night trading.

A major review is needed ASAP not just on public holidays but also weekend trading (5pm law) and possibly late night trading. Even Tasmania is more relaxed than us!
Its 2010, not 1950.

I can't understand how Adelaide's CBD is not a designated tourist zone or how it remains shackled by outdated thinking and regulations. 'It's 2010, not 1950' as crawf has reminded this forum. The city needs to be lively and 'open for business', especially on long weekends /public holidays for visitors /tourists and residents. We can't afford to have a 'dead heart,' loss of economic stimulus, reputation and recommendations.

With more cruise ships and hopefully, more direct flights from O/S, more city residents and a need to attract more domestic visitation, it's more crucial than ever to remove these archaic restrictions on being a progressive and vibrant city. More and more workers work hours beyond the '9 to 5' Monday to Friday and many casuals, in particular, value the opportunity to work evenings, weekends and public holidays.

If it's good enough for Glenelg to be 'open for business', the same should apply to the heart of the city. In fact, the government (and ACC) should be encouraging this.

AtD wrote:

Prince George wrote:Whatever the politics of this situation, I am yet to see any compelling economic reason for extending trading hours. My old friend, the Substitution Principle, tells me that there's an essentially fixed amount of money available within the state for retail spending and that the likely effect of changing trading hours is to shift spending from one time (or location) to another, but not to increase the total amount of it, with no net effect on the economy. Any growth would seem to rest on tourist spending - now, forgive me, but I don't understand the mindset of travellers that want to shop in largely the same department stores for largely the same products that are available where they came from. And that is what we're talking about here - the smaller stores, where you're more likely to find things that are specific to Adelaide, are already exempt.

It's not that simple. Putting the politics aside and diving into some hardcore microeconomics, I can think of a few simple arguments in favour of deregulated trading, but it's all basically irrelevant anyway.

- Restriction of choice leads to lower consumer surplus.
- On the flip side looking at producer surplus, you could point to the fact that those businesses that are permitted to trade after hours have higher overheads compared to their revenue
- Time preference. This is a big one IMO - people's value of time.

But that is not why there should be deregulation. It should be up to individual businesses and consumers to quantify the pros and cons of opening later or shopping later. It should not be a decision made by a bureaucrat. Shops will only open if the customers are about, and customers will only be about if they want to be.

If, as many people say, deregulated trading hours are not needed, no one would shop after hours, thus no businesses would waste money by being open after hours, so nothing will change. So what's the point of regulation then?

Let the market decide!

In Sydney it's quite common for shops to not bother opening until lunch time, because there's no business in the mornings. I don't understand why we require shops to be open early.

I like this post. I honestly don't see why retail opening hours are so offensive to so many people. We don't place operating restrictions on call-centres (that I know of) and many of them are open 24/7, in addition to the countless others open well beyond the trading hours of any bank or office. I bet that people would riot in the streets if their energy provider or phone company was not able to take their call after 5 on a weekend or on New Year's Day, yet they would express shock and indignation if a shop dared to be open at either of those times.

Prince George, I agree re the limited supply of money and the 'theory of substitution'. My objection concerns the undue influence of the SDA on CBD shopping hours.

There is a problem when places like Jetty Rd Glenelg have liberal hours and the CBD does not. If you wanted to strangle the CBD the SDA's position would be a good start.

Coles and Woolies, btw, have a limited presence (and staff numbers) in the CBD and are probably not driving this.

As to the decision being made 'by a bureaucrat', it should be remembered that Peter Manilauskas is not a government bureaucrat nor has anyone elected him. Manilauskas was appointed unopposed to head the SDA and is not a government employee (although he receives a few fat stipends for sitting on the WorkCover board etc).

The real problems, as stated, are firstly the SDA having the clout to dictate policy regardless of government or community views, and secondly the inequity of the policy itself, disadvantaging CBD traders relative to others, notwithstanding the fixed funds available for retail spending.

Well, here we are in January 2011, witnessing the summary removal from office by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association of Treasurer 'I'm not going anywhere' Foley, with Rann next in line.

State SDA head Don Farrell, who can now legitimately be called the 'head of government' in SA, despite his unrepresentative status, is completing his life's work - the domination of SA politics by his union, remarkable in an era when union membership and power is generally on the slide. It's a tribute to Farrell's years of work infiltrating and taking over ALP pre-selerction mechanisms and building a complex network of influence, obligation and patronage which would make Tammany Hall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall look like an innocent schoolyard clique.

The SDA in SA is now supported by a robust network of public servants, political staffers and MPs. The recent promotions unopposed of SDA MP John Rau to the deputy premiership and the young and inexperienced hack Jack Snelling to the post of Treasurer should proof the SDA against any challenge from the Caucus minority Labor Left at the next election (the SDA has 18 seats in Caucus). Farrell has ordered the demise of Foley, Rann and a list of other potential risks to SDA dominance.

The list, allegedly from Farrell's office and in neat alphabetical order, of MPs to be silenced or removed before the next election is currently:

Rann, Foley, Wright, Holloway, Conlon, Hill, Breuer, Geraghty, Key, Bedford, Thompson, Sneath and Zollo.

Most are Labor Left and a direct threat to the SDA, while others are not well-liked or are underperforming, such as the deluded and unpopular Rann, and poor old Carmel Zollo, an incompetent innocent who was brought in as an SDA placeholder for future removal, and who has been out of her depth since her first day in parliament.

With an ALP win in 2014 far from automatic, it's vital for the SDA to have the ALP looking as sharp as possible for the election. Farrell knows that most voters are unaware of the real mechanisms of the SA government - that there is an unrepresentative force within the ALP which has a very particular agenda, one that has little to do with statesmanship or government for the betterment of SA and of South Australians.

The agenda and object of the SDA is power, and the rewards of office. That much is clear to an astute observer.

For example, there is no supportable argument for allowing Glenelg unrestricted trading hours as a tourism precinct while denying that the CBD is also a tourism precinct, with Rundle Mall, Hindley Street, the East End, the Botanic Gardens, Zoo, the riverside, Museum, Art Gallery, Wine Centre, Park Lands, Clipsal 500, Tour Down Under, Womadelaide, etc. The closing down of the CBD over holiday periods is simply a highly public and highly effective demonstration, to those in the know, of the SDA's huge power. It's gunboat diplomacy, if you like.

The gullible masses may believe Rann when he squeaks 'I will decide any Cabinet shuffle.' He is the Premier, after all. But Rann can't even protect the position of his long-time buddy Foley, and he will have to bow himself to the SDA's power when the time comes. The SDA really is that powerful: it dominates Caucus. In fact, Rann was a strategic appointment to the leadership of the ALP by the SDA 16 years ago. The SDA leadership plans ahead, and knew that it was in their best interest to install as leader the non-aligned, status-driven Rann with his hopeless delusions of emulating his old boss Dunstan. With the publicity-hungry and media savvy Rann drawing all the attention, the SDA has been be left alone to quietly consolidate its empire within the ALP structure. That is exactly what has happened and we are now living with the results - at least the results to date.

The challenge now facing the SDA is to win the next election without too many people realising that an ALP government elected in 2014 will actually be an SDA government.

If the SDA can pull that off, they will have succeeded in the remarkable takeover of a modern democracy and will continue installing SDA appointees to positions of power throughout the public service and parliamentary system. Think 'cancer'.

Not bad for the former Shop Assistants and Warehouse Employees Federation. Terrible for SA though - we'll have, on present indications, a highly conservative premier, John Rau and and ultra-conservative, inexperienced treasurer who has worked only in politics, Jack Snelling. The SDA is unlikely to risk further change in those positions before the election. Watch for a media charm offensive on behalf of these two SDA trusties.

Footnote: In case anyone thinks that it's just me with a quirky, pathological dislike of unrepresentative dictatorships, I invite you to read this thread from the start. My posts pretty well tell the story as I see it. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the SDA:

"The union has a long history of being part of the socially conservative branch of the labour movement and this is often traced back to the Irish Catholic background of most of the union's leaders. The current national secretary is Joe de Bruyn who has held the position for over a quarter of a century.

"The SDA is sometimes criticised for having an unchanged leadership over the course of many years, for example, Joe de Bruyn and Don Farrell have been in high leadership positions in the SDA for decades. This is largely due to the Collegiate Voting system used to elect national officials meaning that State Branches, as opposed to the SDA membership, elect these officials.

"One reason for the constant leadership may be the high turnover of membership, a reality because of the retail environment, which makes challenging for union office difficult. SDA supporters argue that rather than being a negative aspect about the organisation, the stable leadership is a positive and reflects of the strength of the union.

"The SDA has also been criticised as having a disproportionate influence over the Australian Labor Party, influencing party policy towards more socially conservative positions.

"The SDA has taken morally conservative positions on social issues especially concerning issues like abortion and rights for same sex couples.

As they say, 'Be afraid. Be very afraid.'

Don Farrell isn't the head of the SDA, he is in the Federal Senate. Joe de Bruyn is the National Secretary and Gerard Dwyer is the National President.

peas_and_corn wrote: Don Farrell isn't the head of the SDA, he is in the Federal Senate. Joe de Bruyn is the National Secretary and Gerard Dwyer is the National President.

You are correct, peas_and_corn. However, in practice Joe de Bruyn leads the national SDA as he has for the last 25 years.

Similarly, Don Farrell still runs the SDA in South Australia, despite taking the SDA spot on the state Labor senate ticket. If you wish to negotiate with the SDA in South Australia, you will negotiate with Don Farrell. Peter Manilauskas is merely Farrell's agent in Adelaide, and Tom Koutsantonis is the errand boy.

That's why Weatherill had to discuss his plans with Farrell in early December last year, and why Farrell left his den in Canberra for meetings with Rau and Snelling to set up Farrell's reorganisation of the SA government ministry:

It is understood that while there was strong support for Mr Snelling, internal discussions over the past few days have firmed up the numbers behind Mr Rau, who was seen talking intently with Right faction boss Senator Don Farrell at the Tour Down Under on Sunday.

It's also why Rann, now outed as a powerless figurehead, looks so pathetic when after denying that either he or his pal Foley were going anywhere, said a few days ago:

The Premier also said that he -- not Mr Foley nor the factions -- would allocate portfolios.

"What is important for government is a blend of youth and experience, and also a blend of stability, continuity and change. I am very comfortable about the process and I will make the decision on the allocation of portfolios as I've always done," Mr Rann said, adding that MPs should not be concerned about Mr Foley's dominant and forceful personality remaining in cabinet.

"No one should ever fear forceful personalities in cabinet," he said. "I can manage that."

That is a joke. Rann can't even manage Senator Don Farrell. Even Tom Koutsantonis (who Rann fears and hates) has more real power than the premier. Rann has no more power to stop Don Farrell from doing exactly as he likes than King Canute had to turn the tide.

Left-aligned members say they were not consulted about the appointments and only learnt of the likely replacements for Kevin Foley's portfolios through the media.

"This is just not acceptable," one backbencher said.

"It is something that needs to be discussed in caucus and needs to be decided through the caucus and the party.

"Even if we (the Left) don't have the numbers, we should have an opportunity to hear why these people should get the job."

Traditionally, the ALP decides who is leader and deputy leader of the party in a caucus meeting, where members hear arguments from each candidate for why they should win the position.

The Labor Government and its front bench is dominated by the Right faction which has 18 members, including Mr Snelling and the more moderate Mr Rau.

Rann is unaligned. He is f*cked.

The numbers are against Rann, who Don Farrell has decided has reached his use-by date. The only reason Rann is still here is that to kick him out would be to expose too much of the realpolitik at work in SA to the public, many of whom still believe that the Premier heads caucus and governs the state. Those naive voters are valuable, and could be shocked enough at the reality to desert at the next election the just, compassionate Labor Party, the party of the average bloke, in which they still foolishly believe.

The biggest loser is not Rann, Foley or the Left wing of the Labor Party, but democratic process in SA. We are witnessing the takeover of that process by the tiny, unrepresentative management of a single union.

What Farrell is doing is nothing short of a coup.

He should be stopped at any cost. I am doing what I can, including posting on this forum, and taking certain direct actions. What are you doing to safeguard the future of your state?

Hyperbole police.

Hyperbole police, eh, SRW?

If I'm right - and I'm saying that all the evidence I've found points to my thesis of a carefully orchestrated coup of SA's democratic government by the SDA being conducted right under our noses being correct - then your comment indicates the complacency which is allowing such an outrage to happen.

Read the following from today's Australian, and ask yourself if it's OK for the heads of one union to be hiring and firing the political executive of the state. Shouldn't Rann have something to do with these appointments? Shouldn't the Labor Caucus at least have a say in the appointments?

This is very serious stuff. It's serious for the SDA because the power, salaries and other rewards of office are considerable. It's serious for SA because our democratic parliamentary system should ensure that the elected representatives of the people have a say in who governs us. The party in power at least should have a say. But they don't. This state is presently being run by Don Farrell, a recently elected federal senator, Peter Manilauskas, a union secretary, and Tom Koutsantonis, a junior parliamentarian.

Is that representative government? No way. Rann has been sidelined. Dissidents like Police Minister Wright will not be shot, but they won't achieve their 'ballot' either. Wright will be made an offer he can't refuse: a lucrative overseas posting, $100,000 per year of board positions on top of his super or maybe just a heavy threat if he doesn't quit. Remember, Foley said 'I ain't going nowhere,' then he gave up his much prized treasurer's job without a whimper.

I have been told by an impeccable source that Don Farrell said this week, 'I have to be very careful in establishing the new ministry. Too much too soon will upset the apple cart.'

Read the extract from the Australian, and think about it. Think about Animal Farm and how the pigs gradually changed the way the farm was managed to suit their own clique. It seems very clear to me that our democratic government is being taken over by a small, unrepresentative group - and that is by definition a coup.

South Australian Right faction chief Don Farrell says the first phase of state Labor's leadership transition is going as well as could be expected.

The Rann government has been in turmoil as it settles on replacements for Deputy Premier and Treasurer Kevin Foley, who is expected to step down when he returns next month from a US trade trip.

The dominant Right faction of the Rann government has decided on Attorney-General John Rau as deputy and Employment Minister Jack Snelling as treasurer.

"The faction is working pretty co-operatively in difficult times. It's a time of transition,' Senator Farrell said yesterday. 'We're all creatures of habit, and change is always going to be difficult - it's particularly difficult in the public arena.'

But other Right powerbrokers, including Peter Manilauskas, state secretary of the powerful Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, refused to comment on the future of Police Minister Michael Wright. It is understood Mr Manilauskas has scheduled a meeting with Mr Wright next week.

As reported by The Australian yesterday, Mr Wright challenged 'immature' Right faction powerbrokers to blast him out of the Rann government ministry, warning he would not step aside.

'If they're going to try to knock me off, I'm going to make them do it in a ballot and I'm going to tell a few home truths along the way,' Mr Wright said.

A senior Right source said that if Mr Wright 'does not want to go anywhere, then he does not go anywhere. We don't drag people out and shoot them,' the source said. 'People make up their own minds. There is no shortage of of either short-term or medium-term vacancies in Cabinet.'

So, this evidence of which you speak...

Evidence? The principal evidence is the actions of the people concerned.

As in science, you can say that at the least, the observations are consistent with some cause at work, but there comes a point where the observations overwhelmingly indicate that cause.

My 'theory' - that the SDA is conducting a slow motion coup, seems to be supported by the observations.

It's clear that Caucus isn't running things - non-SDA members are learning things first from the media. It's also clear that Rann has had nothing to do with the recent appointments of the deputy premier and the treasurer...

Don Farrell seems to be in charge of things, while Rann twitters away about the Tour Down Under.

What sort of evidence do you want? Fingerprints? Seriously, I have no damning internal memos or transcripts, but I refer you to accumulated media reports, and the statements and supposed facts they contain. People have also told me things they have heard and seen, but it's hard to corroborate that sort of thing. I think the reported goings on are enough to make the case. especially if you string them together.

My main concerns about an SDA coup, by the way, are not about the fact that the SDA also marginalises the Liberal Party and the Greens, but that they are not representative, and because they have no concern for merit in making appointments, as we've seen with treasurer-in-waiting Snelling.

stumpjumper wrote:Hyperbole police, eh, SRW?

If I'm right - and I'm saying that all the evidence I've found points to my thesis of a carefully orchestrated coup of SA's democratic government by the SDA being conducted right under our noses being correct - then your comment indicates the complacency which is allowing such an outrage to happen.

No. I have no quibble with your points about Don Farrell and his Right faction domineering the SA Labor Party. That's no surprise to me, and we've seen similar in NSW. Our major parties have never been democratic organisations and probably haven't even moderately resembled one for at least 3 decades. But I don't necessarily conflate the takeover of SA Labor with a coup of SA's government or an undermining of its fundamental democratic elements.

Yes, it's all very concerning, especially if we look back to the NSW example. But your valid points are led astray by the hyperbole with which you accompany them. Leave that out and you have more chance of persuading people to reconsider their vote in 2014, or even to begin agitating for (desperately needed) party reform.

Pants wrote:So, this evidence of which you speak...

lol that's a good joke

He obviously has an axe to grind, let him grind away. It is the Internet after all, everyone has a voice..

stumpjumper wrote:Evidence? The principal evidence is the actions of the people concerned.

As in science, you can say that at the least, the observations are consistent with some cause at work, but there comes a point where the observations overwhelmingly indicate that cause.

My 'theory' - that the SDA is conducting a slow motion coup, seems to be supported by the observations.

It's clear that Caucus isn't running things - non-SDA members are learning things first from the media. It's also clear that Rann has had nothing to do with the recent appointments of the deputy premier and the treasurer...

Don Farrell seems to be in charge of things, while Rann twitters away about the Tour Down Under.

What sort of evidence do you want? Fingerprints? Seriously, I have no damning internal memos or transcripts, but I refer you to accumulated media reports, and the statements and supposed facts they contain. People have also told me things they have heard and seen, but it's hard to corroborate that sort of thing. I think the reported goings on are enough to make the case. especially if you string them together.

My main concerns about an SDA coup, by the way, are not about the fact that the SDA also marginalises the Liberal Party and the Greens, but that they are not representative, and because they have no concern for merit in making appointments, as we've seen with treasurer-in-waiting Snelling.

So you don't have any then?

I'd settle for first hand observations, but you're going on hearsay.

I don't expect you to have any evidence of any of this. But at the same time, I don't expect you to be passing it off as fact and acting like our democratic world is about to come crashing down around us when you don't.

There's not much more to say, or that I can say about all this, but to address the points above:

No. I have no quibble with your points about Don Farrell and his Right faction domineering the SA Labor Party. That's no surprise to me, and we've seen similar in NSW.

Quite, SRW. Sure we've had dominant parties and dominant factions before, but not to such an extreme. Unions have always had a lot to say in what the ALP does (as they say - 'follow the money') and the Libs have had various influences on them too, but I think the influence of non-elected people over the ALP in SA is at an all time high, and is now actually detrimental to good government. As you point out, equivalence with NSW is hardly praise.

rev, it's not so much an axe to grind - not in the sense of special pleading on behalf of some political party, anyway. I'm trying to make a point, which I think I've made.

Pants - I don't have any damning private documents, but what is unfolding is a bit more conclusive than hearsay. As I said, the public actions and statements of the people concerned is enough, especially if you look at the actions etc over a period of time.

It's quite clear that Rann is no longer in control of the ALP Caucus. He is being blatantly ignored, as is Caucus itself, supposedly the highest forum of the Labor party, and therefore of the government.

That is where the danger to good government lies. Caucus makes appointments after debating the claims of the 'applicants'. The SDA has become so strong that it does not refer to any democratic process at all. You don't need a secret document or video to understand that decisions that affect all South Australians are being made by people way outside our representative parliament.

What happens if Treasurer Snelling screws up, and does something that costs millions, resulting in a reduction of social services? What is the line of responsibility? Snelling wasn't appointed by the government, by parliament, or even by a political party. What if he was appointed by Don Farrell alone? Farrell is not a member of the government, of our parliament and may not even be a member of a political party. That is NOT the way things are supposed to happen.

If everyone's comfortable with Cabinet being appointed by unelected people outside our parliamentary system, then we might as well outsource law-making and state taxation as well, and let the Don Farrells around the place govern us completely, according to his own agenda or values.

That situation, rev, is the joke. However, it is very close to what we have now. I have no doubt (but no hard evidence) that, having appointed the deputy premier and the treasurer, that the SDA, or Farrell personally, will appoint or approve the holder every other important ministry.

Michael Owen, a journalist at the Australian who is following this closely, told me: 'Don Farrell is aware that there could be strong resistance to what he is doing, so he is doing it in small steps'.

What's more, Farrell is branding opponents as being 'resistant to the change that is inevitable in a political system'. My response to that is first, why is he the one making the changes, and second is he trying to sugar coat a bitter pill, ie reassure us while the SDA stealthily neutralises our democracy?

The SDA does have a political philosophy, by the way, but it's a fairly grim one. Perhaps the SDA is operating a Trojan Horse - the public won't vote for its ultra-conservative and industrially savage program, so it hopes to gain power by the back door - by appointing the Ministry and controlling parliament.

I'll respond to any posts on this, but otherwise there's not a lot more I have to say without repetition.

PS

Perhaps I should relax about this. Mike Rann isn't worried. Apparently he spent most of this week at the Tour Down Under (he's the Official Starter, Grand Presenter Of Coloured Jerseys, etc)