Sensational-Adelaide.com

So much hilarity!

HIlarious that all and sundry are willing to change shopping hours on one day for the sake of 4500 non-residents, yet any suggestion of extending them at any other time for the sake of the million SA residents is met with astonishment and accusations of anti-worker bastardry.

Hilarious that the accompanying table in the paper showed that our shopping hours in the CBD are, save for late-night Thursday and one extra hour on Sunday that Sydney and Melbourne get, exactly the same as the rest of the nation. Not a crisis, in other words.

Hilarious that, unless the Government forces them to do so, that many shops won't open early for the sake of so few visitors and the dribs and drabs of locals, so it won't be a particularly impressive Rundle Mall until......normal shopping hours time.

i know, but the media have once again played the great unwashed like a violin on this one

Wayno wrote: i'm interested in facts - what % of the population are pro-shopping on public holidays vs those who are not.

Interestingly, Peter Manilauskas, the state boss of the SDA and the man who decides our shopping hours, told me himself that he has done no polling either of members of his union or of the public regarding shopping hours. The Rann 'government' has not done any polling either.

Polling is not necessary, because the restrictions on shopping hours are not related to demand by consumers. The restrictions on shopping hours are intended to stand as a beacon, and a warning, of the enormous power of the SDA in South Australia. The restrictions are slightly counter-productive, but that's a small price to pay for the effect obtained. No-one disputes that the SDA is firmly in control of the Labor government in SA. The SDA appoints ministers, dismisses them and develops policy.

Manilauskas is presently hard at work attempting to put together a ministry that might get Labor over the line at the next SA election.

ricecrackers wrote: i know, but the media have once again played the great unwashed like a violin on this one

How so, ricecrackers? I see the great (and complacent) unwashed assenting to being compromised yet again by the power games of the highly flawed system of government in this state. I see no media manipulation, but I'm happy to be enlightened.

omicron wrote: our shopping hours in the CBD are, save for late-night Thursday and one extra hour on Sunday that Sydney and Melbourne get, exactly the same as the rest of the nation

General retail shopping hours in Sydney's CBD are: Mon - Sat 9am - 6pm; Thurs 9am - 9pm; Sun 11am - 5pm but these hours are flexible.

There are many exceptions -

Market Centre (retail): Specialty Stores: 7 days 10am - 7pm; Supermarket / Fresh Food: 7 days 9am - 8pm; Cinemas, Restaurants, Food Court & Entertainment: 7 days 9am - late

Sydney Central Plaza: Grace Bros and fashion: Mon - Sat 9am - 6pm, Thu 9am - 9pm, Sun 11am - 5pm. Food Hall: Mon - Wed 7am - 7pm, Thu 7am - 10pm, Fri 7am - 8pm, Sat 8am - 7pm, Sun 10am - 6pm.

The list goes on.

It's clear that shops in Sydney are opening in response to demand. People, especially tourists, shop for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and look for late night entertainment.

There seems nothing wrong with supply meeting demand, with concessions for Christmas Day etc, obviously. Given the availability of staff, it seems odd that trading hours are arbitrarily restricted in SA, especially as neither the union responsible nor the government has any data supporting the decision. The reason for the lack of data is that the decision to restrict hours is purely political and cannot be supported by any figures.

If the SDA really has as much control over Labor as we are being led to believe, why isn't the media all over it? Where is the investigative reporting? The Advertiser has clearly turned against Rann & Co lately, and surely looking more deeply into this relationship would sell many papers. So it's curious nothing is said.

The media does have a bit to say. Here are some recent pieces from the Australian:

24/1/11: Mr Foley denied there had been any deal struck about his future or that anyone from the party had tapped him on the shoulder to move aside. That’s not what Labor insiders are saying. They believe Right faction leaders Senator Don Farrell and state secretary of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association Peter Malinauskas have both made it clear to Mr Foley that his time was up.

28/1/11: "We have had a very stable Cabinet," Jack Snelling said. "Now that it is time to go through transition and bring new faces on, it is going to be a very difficult period. I think we will get through it and return to the sort of discipline we have seen over the past nine years."
Mr Snelling has been earmarked by the powerful Right faction to take over the Treasury portfolio with Attorney-General John Rau Deputy Premier when Kevin Foley steps down, as expected, on his return from a defence trip to the US.

"I am sure we will get through it. The Government will get through it successfully and we will get back to the sort of discipline the Government has shown over the past nine years." Mr Snelling said he would not speculate on Mr Foley's future. He said he had not spoken to him just before he left for the US or since. Asked about discussions with such party powerbrokers as Senator Don Farrell and Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association secretary Peter Malinauskas, he said: "I talk not only to those but other people in the party about what is going on all the time. That's not a surprise."

The Advertiser seems to think it's time for a change, but over the last few years it's favoured Labor (in good shape) over the Liberals. That may be due to the Rann government's treatment of the editor, Melvin Mansell. The government has a history with the Advertiser. When reporter Michael Owen back-chatted Rann at a press conference, Rann demanded a meeting with Michael Miller, the Advertiser's managing director, Mansell and Owen. As a result, with the agreement of Miller and Mansell, Owen was to sit at the back of any government press conference and was never again to ask a question. He also had to write a grovelling letter of apology, or be fired. Owen soon got jack of this arrangement and now works for the Australian, from where he writes articles sniping at the Rann government.

Rann demanded and got the sacking of Kevin Naughton from ABC Radio for playing a recording of a conversation of Rann pulling out of an interview at the last minute.

The most recent instance of monstering of a journalist by the Rann government was Rann's demand that the Australian sack political reporter Michelle Weise-Bockmann for writing critically of the Rann government. The government made various threats over several meetings with senior executives of News Ltd, but the Australian stood firmer than did the Advertiser, and told the government it would not agree to sack Weise-Bockmann. However, the government cut off Weise-Bockmann from all government communication, and she was personally abused by treasurer Foley over an item mentioning Foley's weekend in Port Lincoln with his then girlfriend - an item Weise-Bockmann had nothing to do with. Still cut off by the government, Weise-Bockmann left Australia and now works in London.

So the Advertiser is wary of criticising Rann, but it is becoming quite clear where the power really lies in the Rann government, so that policy may change. In fact the Advertiser has spent considerable time analysing the 'appointments' by the SDA of Rau and Snelling, ignoring Rann's bleating first that he would decide any Cabinet reshuffle and then, lamely, that he was 'comfortable' with the SDA's selections.

These days, Rann is pretty well sidelined. He had nothing to say about the appointment of NSW Labor hack Craig Knowles to the chair of the Murray Darling Basin Authority. Mr Knowles inherited his parliamentary seat from his father. Knowles had a troubled career in parliament, with anti-corruption commission investigations into his behaviour and involvement in the Orange Grove zoning scam. He was under investigation when he quit parliament in mid-term, forcing a by-election. He started a new career as a lobbyist, but was more successful in holding down seats on a swag of minor government boards. The Murray Basin gig is his best since leaving parliament, and enables Knowles to give up his struggling lobbying venture.

It will be worth watching the Gillard government manage the Murray Basin Authority. Senator Don Farrell of the SDA was in September last year installed as Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water, primarily because of his influence in the troublesome (with respect to the Murray) state of South Australia. Since taking office, Farrell has worked closely with Water Minister Tony Burke (Burke was an SDA employee and worked under Farrell), amid speculation that Farrell's role is to effect a gradual takeover of the entire Murray Darling Basin Authority by the ALP.

So Farrell's mate Knowles has replaced the previous chair, Mike Taylor, who disagreed with Knowles and Farrell on water outcomes. Also replaced is the departmental deputy secretary responsible for water, James Horne.

It looks as though there will be a purge of anyone responsible for the October 2010 draft policy which proposed cuts of 3000 gigalitres in upriver commercial entitlements in order to guaranteed environmental flows to South Australia.

The selection of Farrell as Parliamentary Secretary for Water and his mate Knowles as chair of the MDBA will ensure that there is the skill, commitment and clout to ensure continued access to river water by upriver users despite SA's demands.

From the Sydney Morning Herald, 29/1/11:

Phillip Coorey

The looming putsch against the board follows the appointment yesterday of the former NSW Labor minister Craig Knowles as the chairman, and the replacement over Christmas of the departmental deputy secretary responsible for water, James Horne.

A draft guide on water reform, published in October, recommended minimum cuts to irrigation along the basin of 3000 gigalitres, which caused widespread panic and anger among farmers and a political backlash, with claims that communities and livelihoods would be wiped out.

Advertisement: Story continues below
A senior source told the Herald there was a purge of anybody associated with the authority's draft guide.

Those being targeted included the board members.

The authority is an independent statutory body whose members cannot be sacked, but a withdrawal of government support would make their tenure untenable.

The Water Minister, Tony Burke, announced yesterday that Mr Knowles would replace Mike Taylor as chairman. Mr Taylor quit last month in acrimonious circumstances...

The real problem is not so much the pervasive influence of SDA tactics in the business of water, but of a subtle change in approach under Knowles. He has taken the environmentalists slogan that you can't have a healthy economy without a healthy river and changed it around:

Mr Knowles does not believe the act needs rewriting to take account of the triple bottom line.

''The act is very clear,'' he said. ''It's about optimising the economic, environmental and social impacts in the basin. You cannot have healthy river system without a healthy economy.''

Such words are music to the ears of irrigators and farmers who feared the imposition of the recommendations. But they will concern some in the environmental movement.

A bit of thread drift along the Murray, but rest assured, the SDA is probably the most potent force in SA politics and is making inroads in federal politics too. The SDA's great strength is their exclusivity. The SDA is numerically Australia's largest union, and is very wealthy, but it has very low member participation in its management, possibly because the retail industry has a high turnover of staff, most members are young, many are casuals or part-time, and importantly, SDA members do not vote for their executive. The only voting is at branch level, firmly controlled by branch executives. Rank and file members are barely represented at branch level.

The result is a very well paid core of long-serving officials - a band of brothers if ever there was one. 30 years in a position is not unknown - both national boss de Bruyn and SA boss Farrell have been 'in power' for around 30 years.

Not only is the SDA a very conservative union, they are fundamentally attached to the tenets of the Labor Catholic Right, which was once represented by the Democratic Labor Party. The SDA is an old-fashioned union in many ways. They believe in hierarchies and dynasties. Michael Wright, for example, inherited his parliamentary position from his father, Jack Wright. Despite his being hopeless, the SDA has only recently decided he has to go. SDA favoured son John Rau is allegedly the illegitimate son of ALP great Clyde Cameron, enough to make Rau's position unassailable, regardless of his skills or aptitude for, say, tourism. Similarly, SDA youngster Snelling would be an excellent treasurer, not because he has any experience - he hasn't - but for Farrell to have the quinella of and SDA premier and an SDA treasurer working under him in South Australia would be just perfect.

Nathan wrote:If the SDA really has as much control over Labor as we are being led to believe, why isn't the media all over it? Where is the investigative reporting? The Advertiser has clearly turned against Rann & Co lately, and surely looking more deeply into this relationship would sell many papers. So it's curious nothing is said.

Lately?

crawf wrote: Lately?

Both quotes above are within the last week.

I think the matter seems too offbeat and remote to warrant much media attention. It's a complex story, if it's correct, of a large, wealthy union with a very small and tight executive carefully expanding its political influence. Nothing about the story is easy to verify, and attacking any powerful union has its own problems.

Anyway, the likely few readers of this thread should watch the Labor Right carefully. It's about to be trashed in NSW as a legitimate force in government with the probable routing of Kristin Keneally's unpopular and incompetent government. Ironically, Ms Keneally was appointed by the NSW Labor Right, notably Joe Tripodi, a controversial figure and a veteran of various enquiries, AVOs etc. There is currently a scramble among the soon to be unemployed hacks for safe incomes. So Tony Burke, federal Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities is helping out. Burke spent 5 years as an official of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, working for Don Farrell before being given a seat in the NSW Legislative Council on the SDA ticket. Burke has appointed his old boss Don Farrell as his Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities - usually a job for someone younger than Farrell's 56 years, but it was important to get Farrell, a very inexperienced senator, into a position of influence.

The first step was to get rid of the idea in the Murray Darling Basin Authority that 'there is no healthy economy without a healthy river'. The water users in NSW are well connected politically, and demanded of the ruling Labor Right that they be looked after. So out went Chairman Taylor and his idea that the environmental flows had priority over commercial use. In went Chairman Brian Knowles, a former NSW MP who had resigned after several scandals and enquiries. Knowles is a former official of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. His boss at the SDA was Don Farrell.

The latest 'environmentalist' to leave the Murray Darling Basin Authority is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. He will be replaced by a former SDA official who is prepared to toe the line that commercial use comes first, then environmental flows.

What will happen, of course, is that the whole process will bog down for years. Gillard won't touch it - she needs the Labor Right more than she needs South Australia, the main beneficiary of 'environmental flows'.

Why is Don Farrell, a Senator for South Australia, involved in a purge of environmentalists from the MDBA? Well, why not. Farrell is a Labor Right senator first, an SDA senator second, and a Senator for South Australia last of all. His goal is power, and he is doing well in achieving it. While running the South Australian government in his spare time, he is cementing himself as a major godfather of the notorious NSW Labor Right, with all of the privileges and prestige which goes with such a role.

stumpy you appear to be a Liberal voter, would that be a correct assumption?
i will declare my position as being swinging (politically, not any other aspect of life) because i'm disillusioned with both of our major parties. i'm even disillusioned with the 3rd options.
the reason i think this is important is because too much of the prevailing opinions of the masses are influenced by the side of politics of which they voted.
the big picture is being ignored, that we as citizens do not have any rights and the majority is ruling policy for every individual.

Not quite correct, ricecrackers. This is not the place to write a political manifesto, but I'd say I hold some of the same values as the Liberals, but I consider the Libs a weak Opposition, and one of the factors which has allowed the 'rise of ratbaggery' in our politics.

I also hold some socialist values, and voted for Dunstan once. I joined the Liberal Party once, but left very quickly. in disgust at finding the Liberal Party to be more of a business and social club than an active political organisation. A vote for the Greens is a vote wasted.

I've met some admirable MPs from both Labor and Liberal sides.

What I'm in favour of in government is competence, fairness and transparency. That's a huge ask, but it's possible to get close with good quality governments of either our social democrat left and social democrat right persuasions.

The SDA, not because of what it is, but because of what it does, is a threat to good government, in my opinion. It was tolerated by the Labor Party, and now rules it. It is not properly accountable to the community its actions affect, and on which it feeds.

they are admirable values
i'd also place libertarianism above all else
there seems to be a total lack of that movement in Australia as we have been well trained as totalitarian slave sheep

Too right. 'Freedom' is almost a dirty word in some company.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/open-and- ... 6003224046

Open and shut case for Rundle Mall
Sheradyn Holderhead From: The Advertiser February 10, 2011

HE debate over whether or not to open Rundle Mall on public holidays will come to a head tomorrow.

Adelaide MP Rachel Sanderson has introduced an Amendment Bill to have the Mall and its surrounds designated a tourist precinct to allow all shops to open on selected public holidays.

Ms Sanderson said the move was vital to service the needs of tourists and local shoppers while allowing retail workers the opportunity to earn extra pay.

In Parliament yesterday, a petition was read out that was signed by more than 1500 people who want to see the city's retail heart open for business on public holidays.

"I would say about 95 per cent of the people who I've spoken to want this," Ms Sanderson said.

"They're people of all ages - even oldies ask me if it's gone through."
If passed, the Bill would allow all Rundle Mall traders, including the major retailers, to open from 11am to 5pm on public holidays, excluding Christmas Day, Good Friday and Easter Sunday, and from noon to 5pm on ANZAC Day.

"It's also when all the country people come down to the city - all the sporting carnivals are on - not to mention all the interstate people and overseas visitors," Ms Sanderson said.

Currently shops under 200sq m can open on public holidays. Excluded are larger stores such as Myer, David Jones and Harris Scarfe.

Ms Sanderson said that no retailer would be forced to open and retail workers would be entitled to refuse to work.

"We continually mention the shop assistants who don't want to work but what about those who do?" she said.

She also offered to include a sunset clause, which means the Bill can be revoked if its intention, including workers rights, becomes exploited.

Morgan Georg, 18, of Littlehampton, was shopping in the Mall yesterday with friend Jemma Quarisa, 19, of Dawesley.

Ms Georg said she worked at a supermarket on public holidays and was happy to do so because of the extra pay.

"If I wasn't working I would like to be able to shop because there is nothing else to do," she said.

The benefits of opening would include a $10 million-plus injection into the economy for each public holiday the Mall was exclusively opened, independent retail analyst Stirling Griff said.

He said taking into account penalty rates and the likelihood of extra staff being required, the Mall's retail workers could gain up to $2 million in wages if it were open on public holidays.

"Major retailers are very keen to see public holiday trading in SA, as it works very well for them interstate," Mr Griff said.

"Some smaller retailers are against it as they are concerned with the wages cost imposition, and in cases where they have limited staff availability or run the business themselves, they appreciate the time off."

Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan said the organisation supported the Bill as extra shop trading hours would provide greater convenience for shoppers, boost sales for businesses and enliven the city.

"Too many lost opportunities occur when thousands of visitors travel to the state over long weekends and are forced to window shop and take their spending money home with them," he said.

"Opening on public holidays provides greater employment opportunities and many workers recently indicated they would have appreciated the extra working hours and income over the Christmas trading period."

Harris Scarfe operations manager Daniel Nikoleaf said opening the Mall and surrounding area would be "very positive" for the city, "and more importantly for the thousands of people who go through Rundle Mall on a weekly basis.

"As we've seen with the success of early evening trading, customers' shopping habits continue to change."

Myer SA and Tasmania regional manager Brett Dyson agreed.

"We want to be able to open when our customers want to shop," he said.

Rundle Mall Management Authority also supported the move.

However general manager Martin Haese said the city needed a broader tourist precinct that also included the cultural institutions on North Tce, the riverbank and other tourism drawcards.

"Public holiday trading is by no means the sole benefit of being designated a tourist precinct, especially if the

precinct is broadened,"

he said.

"Instead, it is one of a number of other benefits, which include investment attraction, urban consolidation, employment growth, innovation, vibrancy and safety."

RMMA chairman and prominent developer Theo Maras said now was the time to act on this issue.

"We're not asking for anything other than what the people of Adelaide want, and so do the people who visit us," he said.

"To close down the centre of the city on long weekends says something about your town - a city without a heart and soul loses its whole being, excitement and integrity.

"It's sad to think the city of Adelaide is losing its children because we lack vitality."

South Australian Tourism Commission chief executive Ian Darbyshire said opening the shops on public holidays needed to be part of a balanced tourism plan.

"I'm not sure right now

just going for a tourism precinct for Rundle Mall is the panacea for all our problems," he said.

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association secretary Peter Malinauskas said the union was opposed to the Bill.

"We want to ensure the state's largest employing industry actually does have the opportunity to have time off," he said.

The SDA is not doing a good job of representing their members.

The SDA is not doing a good job of representing their members.

The SDA does not represent its members. It represents its executive. Ironic since it seems to have aspirations of governing SA. The SDA refuses to poll its members on extended hours - it knows it won't like the answer. The SDA's opposition to extended hours has nothing to do with its members' conditions - instead, it uses its ability to deny the state extended trading hours as an expression of its powers, as an advertisement to 'get with the strength', and as a threat to any other unions or individuals who might question the SDA.

"'Shoppies' will have the final say"
Sunday Mail (SA) February 13 Brad Crouch

"Into this mix comes the government within the Government, the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. This most powerful of unions, with a conservative Catholic leadership, dominates Labor's Right which, in turn, dominates Caucus.

"The list of MPs who worked for the SDA gives a measure of the union's influence in government - Jack Snelling, Tom Koutsantonis, Bernie Finnigan, Michael Atkinson, Tom Kenyon and Lee Odenwalder. The "Shoppies" former state secretary, Don Farrell, now a senator, remains a kingmaker whose backing is crucial for the non-aligned Mr Rann to stay in his job.

"The dominance of the Right, and the influence of the SDA, was shown in the reshuffle - the minority Left faction was frozen out.

Anyone who still thinks Rann, the Labor Party or even more laughably the voters of SA run this state, is sadly behind the times.

Welcome to SDAlia, where everything is arranged for the benefit of the executive of one trade union.

About a week ago, I suggested to Peter Manilauskas, state head of the Shoppies, that the increasing dominance of the Shoppies was not good for democracy, he replied:

"Well, the SDA has been around for a long time - I think we know what is best for the state."

I'm not a member of the Liberal Party, but I wrote to the tourism minister in support of Liberal MP Rachel Sanderson's private member's bill to extend CBD trading. I consider that the city would benefit greatly from the added attraction of optional extended trading hours during public holidays and during after hours events and wou ld be in keeping with the redevelopment of AO and of the riverside precinct.

In response, I received a letter from Industrial Relations Minister Bernard Finnegan dated 23/3/11 advising me that there are no plans to extend trading in the CBD under any circumstances. Finnegan advised that 'hardware, floor coverings, furnishing and motor vehicle spare parts traders are permitted to trade on the closed days with the exception of Christmas Day' which he said 'is a sensible compromise that provides choice and flexibility to retailers and shoppers.'

I complained separately to the tourism minister's office about the closing of the government tourist bureau in King William Street, again mentioning the increased crowds likely due to the redeveloped oval and riverside precinct. I was assured that the outlet's principal functions will be taken over by 'messaging in digital formats', and told yet again that 'after all, the CBD is not a tourist precinct.'

South Australia is certainly leading Australia, if not the world, in ensuring that the state's capital is NOT visitor friendly. Yet the Premier crows about the 13,000 interstate and overseas visitors the Clipsal 500 brings to - where, the countryside?? And we are redeveloping the riverside precinct to what - increase regional tourism??

I even went to the epicentre of the restrictions on retail trading - the office of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association at Kent Town, where I was advised yet again that easing the trading hours in the CBD would be 'grossly unfair on retail workers' and that after all, 'the CBD is not a tourism precinct'.

I objected that no such restrictions apply in the hospitality industry, which has no trouble finding staff who will work very extended hours, and was told that 'we can only speak for members of our union, and present the case as they instruct us.'

What a joke. Living in Adelaide often feels like living in some sort of cuckoo land where everything is backwards and upside down.

If anyone can offer a rational argument for keeping the CBD dead as a doornail during holiday periods, I'd be happy to change my mind on the indescribable attitude of the SDA.

One of the best things about living in Adelaide, for me personally, is that shops do not open on public holidays.

If ever public holiday trading was allowed in the CBD it would only be a few years at most before it was allowed in the suburbs too, and then you may as well just completely abolish all public holidays. Those who claim that only those retail employees who wanted to work would work have probably never worked in retail themselves. I have and I can assure you any employee who refused to work public holidays wouldn't last long in their job. No employer would fire them for refusing to work on a public holiday but they'd find other ways to get rid of them. This is exactly what happened with Sunday trading. I was working for a major retailer when Sunday trading in the suburbs was first allowed. At first it was optional and it has now become compulsory that if rostered on a Sunday you must work just like any other day.

Public holidays were hard fought for and allow people to have a bit of time off to spend with their family or friends and have a balance between work and leisure time.

Most major cities in the world do not allow shops to open on public holidays.

Contrary to what The Advertiser tells us every single public holiday, I do not believe tourists come to Adelaide to shop. Let's face it the shopping centres in Adelaide (including Rundle Mall) are quite decent but not better than in most other cities.

I doubt opening shops longer would really put more money into the economy. People only have so much money to spend and if they did shop on public holidays they'd just be buying the things they would otherwise have bought on other days.

No doubt some people will have a counter argument to each of the above points but as I said the bottom line for me is that Adelaide is a nicer place to live because of the fact shops close on public holidays. I can only hope they continue to do so.