Legislative Council, Tuesday 18 August 2026
Ms FORREST (Murchison) – I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill as well. It’s a private member’s bill being bought in by the member for Rumney. I also appreciate the briefings that have been organised on this bill seeking to provide differing viewpoints, which is always really important to have your initial thoughts or your latter thoughts tested or verified or challenged, and to also understand the potential impact that you may not be fully aware of. I have been challenged by this bill as I appreciate the genuine concerns raised by business and industry in relation to the costs of staffing on a public holiday.
But I also note that Tasmania is now the only state that does not recognise Easter Sunday as a public holiday, and that the workers who staff our hospitals, our aged care, our disability services, our shops, cafes and our emergency services on that day should be entitled to the same recognition as their counterparts on the mainland. That’s a fairness argument, and I accept that.
But I do think, in doing our job properly, we can’t simply accept the strongest version of either side of this case. I will support the bill and know that my support does come with some reservations and some questions. I will put those on the record and hope the member for Rumney can provide some responses to a couple of the points.
One piece of evidence provided to us was the McKell Institute’s modelling that was commissioned by the Tasmanian Labor Party on the economic impact of an Easter Sunday public holiday in Tasmania. We also heard from the McKell Institute, who confirmed that the modelling did not break down regional versus rural impacts. I believe this is important, particularly representing a rural and regional electorate, but then most of Tasmania is, let’s be honest. I wish to set out what that modelling actually says, as I understand it, because it’s actually being used by both sides to support conclusions that go further than I think the report actually does. The McKell analysis draws on the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ payroll data from jurisdictions that already have an Easter Sunday public holiday, and they found no statistically significant employment effect from the change. It estimated that the additional wages payable to Tasmanian employees are between $5.3 and $6.48 million or, as the member for Rumney noted in her contribution, around 0.024-0.029 per cent of the state’s total wages bill.
According to the McKell report’s modelling across 19 sectors of the Tasmanian economy, the net economic impact, after accounting for the fact that wages paid are substantially a transfer of income, rather than a loss of output, is estimated at between $4.2 million and $5.3 million, a state average of $7 to $9 per Tasmanian. I accept that this modelling is the best available estimate of the statewide aggregate effect. But numbers don’t mean a lot to people who are struggling to get by. I think we need to put the numbers in context, and recognise that there are some businesses who’ll find this a real challenge, should it be supported.
The report and the numbers do tell us that this change is affordable at a macro-level, and that claims of broad economy-wide job losses are not supported by the experience of other states. Tasmania is a far more dispersed population than the other states; we have to be careful and not just say, ‘Well, because it happens in this place, it’ll be the same impact in that place’.
What it does not tell us, and does not purport to tell us, is what happens to our individual, small businesses. Say a small business in Stanley, Wynyard, Queenstown, on King Island or Bicheno, or some of the other small communities around the east-coast, and down the Huon, and all our smaller regional towns, where businesses operate on a two and three per cent margin, for whom an extra-day of penalty rates is a real challenge, and a real consideration in their budget.
The state average of $7 to $9 per Tasmanian sits comfortably alongside the genuinely difficult decision for a particular cafe, motel or tourism operator on the north-west coast. It sounds like a small number, but that was across the state. We do need to be conscious of the fact that whilst there might be a state average, it doesn’t necessarily apply to every business around our state. Both things can be true at once. I don’t think we serve this debate well by citing only the aggregate number. As I said, it answers the questions for every business.
The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has written to members opposing the bill, and I don’t think anyone would be surprised by that. We’ve also heard from them that Hospitality of Tasmania, Tasmanian Small Business Council and the Tourism Industry Council raised similar concerns. I absolutely understand why they would be concerned. Tasmania already has a public service public holiday on Easter Tuesday, that’s to understand what it is, maybe the member for Rumney can clarify that. It is not a statutory holiday – it’s not really a public holiday as such, because it is not the public. It’s treated as a public holiday, an additional day off as agreed to in enterprise agreements in lieu of other benefits, such as higher wages in other jurisdictions, for example.
I know that language is often used: a public holiday on the Tuesday, but it’s actually not. That language is used, perhaps, to describe the fact that some people, under their enterprise agreements, actually get the benefit that is like a public holiday.
A concern that’s been raised is that, in practise, this change could suppress trade across the state, well beyond the public service itself, because so much of the private sector either closes in-step with government, or gives its staff a day off regardless. I’m sure it’s really hard for some businesses when they see all these other people taking a day off, not to think: ‘Well, I’ll take an extra day, and I might have a couple of days annual leave as well, and make it a decent break.’
However, it could also be argued that this could stimulate the tourism, hospitality and retail sectors as those with an additional day off are more likely to take a few breaks, often in our regions – get out of the cities, and enjoy the best we have to offer. There are swings and roundabouts in this and you do need to look at the full picture.
The TCCI’s point would be a fair one if the argument for this bill was national consistency. This is the matter where there is an extra Tuesday too, they’re saying that that’s an extra public holiday and that needs to be addressed, but it’s not a statutory holiday as I’ve just tried to describe. I hope the member for Rumney can clarify that.
In my view, we do actually need a proper broad review of all statutory holidays, especially as many are regionally‑based. Now we’ve got to a point where some of them are linked to a show that doesn’t even happen. I think there is a need for a broader look at this, but that’s not a matter for this bill. Regardless, I don’t think that inconsistency is a reason to vote against the bill.
The other issue that was raised was the compounding effect. If this bill passes, Tasmania moves from three days of Easter trading disruption – Good Friday, and Easter Monday and the de‑facto Easter Tuesday for many – to four consecutive days spanning Friday to Monday plus Easter Tuesday for many workers, with Easter Sunday becoming a full statutory public holiday in the middle of it.
The TCCI cites its own survey of members where 78 per cent were opposed to the change. Mind you, when I did go through some of the comments that were provided, there were some who acknowledge that they employ people in other parts of the country, and it seems only fair that they treat their Tasmanian workers the same. There are differing views, and we need to listen to their views because they are legitimate, as are the views of others.
We also need to remember that Sunday penalty rates currently apply according to the awards that various workers work under, so it’s not the same and I think the member for Rumney alluded to this as well. It’s not the same as going from an ordinary rate of pay to a public holiday penalty rate. It’s going from a Sunday penalty rate to a public holiday penalty rate. Yes, there’s an increase, but it’s not a massive jump. It’s an incremental increase. I’m not suggesting though, that that’s not an issue for many small businesses, it can be. I’m just stating it as a reality.
If some choose to close, for those who predominantly use casual staff to fill weekend shifts, these workers may well miss out on the income altogether and that may not be a good outcome for them. A lot of casual workers who are uni students, for example, do rely on weekend shifts. When the business that they work in is closed there is no money for those people. I guess it comes down to the likelihood that this will be the outcome. Research we have from the McKell Institute suggests it isn’t likely to have a large negative impact in Tasmania, as it doesn’t in other states.
The concern around regional and tourism trading over what is one of Tasmania’s busiest visitor periods is a legitimate one. It’s precisely the regional communities that I represent that depend on Easter trade. But I also know that in some of our small towns, everything does shut, not because of the Sunday penalty rate now, it’s just difficult getting staff, people don’t want to work, they want to have time with their families, or it is marginal and they close anyway. We do need to be conscious of making that any worse because it can damage the reputation of the town as a tourism destination.
I also note, in fairness to the bill’s proponents here, that the TCCI’s submission acknowledges that Tasmanian businesses already navigate exactly this kind of decision on Good Friday and Easter Monday every year. They have mechanisms like surcharging, adjusting hours, rostering choices. They’re not new, and this bill is asking them to apply them to one additional day, not invent a whole new system.
Before I wrap up, there is one group I want to put on the record before I come to my conclusion, because I feel they don’t feature prominently enough in the debate that has really been centred around hospitality, retail and the tourism sector, which are really important. But a great many of those who will stand to benefit from this bill have no say at all on whether they work on Easter Sunday. Nurses, cleaners, police, ambulance officers and other essential and public safety staff rostered on that day do not get to decide whether the ward or station or depo opens. They don’t put a surcharge on. You don’t have to pay an extra little tab to the ambo when they pick you up. It opens regardless, because the people who depend on them need them to be there. Under the law as it stands, these workers are on shift in the middle of a long weekend – or a long, long weekend in this case, particularly – for less than a colleague doing an identical job on the identical time of day one day later on Easter Monday.
Those are workers for whom holiday periods routinely mean time away from family and friends, while the rest of us – myself and every other member in this Chamber included – as the member for Launceston said, are free to spend time with the people we care about and take a longer break the Easter period allows. That is simply the nature of essential work, and having spent much of my own career in nursing, it’s not something I take lightly. These shifts were notoriously difficult to fill. To think, if I worked on the Sunday, I could have Friday, Saturday, Sunday with the family and I could work Monday. I’d get paid the public holiday rate on Monday, but not on the Sunday. Regardless of whether you’re religious or not, it’s still a day that’s important to family, and particularly those who have little humans around, who would like to see if the Easter bunny has been, or not. Hopefully been.
These workers, they work because that’s what the job requires. What this bill proposes to change, is whether they are paid to work on what is really a public holiday in the midst of an Easter break at a rate that they will get from any other public holiday and any other state in Australia. These are Tasmanians who give up part of that weekend for the rest of us. I think this is a significant and often overlooked group of people, and their circumstances deserve the real weight of consideration in this bill.
On balance, Mr President, I think the fairness case is the stronger one and the McKell modelling gives a reasonable level of confidence that this change does not carry an economy wide risk, as some may suggest. It may definitely impact some smaller businesses in our region, I’m not denying that.
Tasmanian workers who give up Easter Sunday for the rest of us should not be paid less than for workers doing the same job everywhere in the country. Easter Sunday is not just any other Sunday. It falls in the middle of, for some people, a very important religious festival. For others it’s often a time of family. It seems extraordinary that a Monday would attract more money than a Sunday in this case.
I will be listening carefully to other members’ contributions, but I also seek some clarification on those matters from the member for Rumney. I want to note, though, that the business’s concerns are not baseless simply because the statewide modelling nets out at limited or small impact, and I don’t want my support for this bill to be read as any dismissal of those concerns.