SHOP TRADING HOURS (RUNDLE MALL TOURIST PRECINCT) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 September 2010.)

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:08): I rise to oppose this bill and to indicate the government’s opposition to the measure. While I and the government share the sentiments of the member for Adelaide regarding the benefits of having the CBD as a tourism and cultural hub that is vibrant and attractive to visitors, we oppose the member for Adelaide's bill to amend the Shop Trading Hours Act 1977 to create a special shopping precinct around Rundle Mall.

The current trading hours for non-exempt shops in the Rundle Mall precinct allow trading from midnight to 9pm on weekdays, from midnight to 5pm on Saturdays, and from 11am until 5pm on Sundays. These shops cannot trade on 25 and 26 December, 1 January, Easter Sunday and other public holidays, excluding Easter Saturday. It is abundantly clear, therefore, that there are very few times of the year that these shops cannot open.

Members may recall that in 2003 the most significant shop trading hours reforms in South Australia's history were delivered by this government, which provided over 700 extra hours per year for shopping in the suburbs. These reforms applied to shops across the entire metropolitan area and provided more choice for retailers and consumers, while retaining some restriction on trading hours to support shop workers and small business. These reforms allow retailers more freedom to meet the needs of their customers, while protecting workers and their families from fully deregulated trading hours.

The government considers that the current trading hours prescribed in the act achieve the right balance of flexibility and protection for the retail industry and does not support the further deregulation of shop trading hours. However, we will continue to put in place special arrangements, where justified, for shop trading hours at the appropriate times of the year, such as Christmas, Easter and ANZAC Day.

In recent years, the Minister for Industrial Relations has also approved exemptions for shops within the Rundle Mall precinct to trade additional hours to support tourism associated with the combined effects of the Clipsal 500, the Adelaide Festival and the Fringe Festival. One of the important outcomes of the amendments to the act passed in 2003 was the removal of the inequitable differences in trading hours applying to non-exempt shops located in the central shopping district and the Glenelg tourist precinct in comparison to other areas of metropolitan Adelaide.

The government does not support the re-establishment of discriminatory, anti-competitive trading hour differences between the Adelaide metro area retail sector as proposed by this bill. In this context, the Shopping Centre Council of Australia has expressed its concerns about the proposed trading hours. The Shopping Centre Council is opposed to restrictions on competition based on geographic location and believes that governments should create level playing fields for businesses to operate within.

Clearly, this bill would significantly disadvantage retailers and retail workers in suburban shopping centres. Elizabeth City Shopping Centre, which is the largest retail centre in my own electorate and among the largest in the metro area, contains many of the same retailers and franchisees as the proposed tourist precint—Myer, Woolworths and many smaller retail outlets. To open Rundle Mall at the proposed times will surely result in an overall reduction in the money being spent in centres like Elizabeth. It is anti-competitive and may ultimately disadvantage retail workers, especially young retail workers who do not have the option of extra hours in the city.

As part of the reform package delivered in 2003, the government made a commitment to review the provisions of the act after three years' operation of the expanded trading hours. In 2007, retired judge Alan Moss completed an independent review of the existing legislation. Mr Moss found that the act provides some protection to small business and shops, which was in the community's interest. Mr Moss recommended that the current trading hours be retained as they strike a satisfactory balance between the competing interests of the various sectors of the retail industry and the larger interests of the community.

The Moss report dealt in some detail with the issues of trading on public holidays, tourism and the CBD. In his report to the government, Mr Moss recommended:

While general public holiday trading is not desirable, the Minister should from time to time consider exempting the CBD from the operation of the Act in special circumstances, such as when major events are occurring in Adelaide where there are a large number of interstate or overseas visitors. Such exemptions should not involve the 'iconic public holidays' identified in 6.7 of this report.

The 'iconic public holidays' identified were Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday and the morning of ANZAC Day.

The government supports the tenor of the Moss report and, at this point in time, has no intention to further deregulate shop trading hours on public holidays. It considers that the current trading hour regime achieves an appropriate balance for small retailers and workers and their families who also deserve a break from working excessively long hours to enjoy the holidays.

This bill has implications beyond the intentions of the member for Adelaide to assist in the promotion of the CBD as a tourist hub. It would remove protections on most public holidays for retail workers, small traders and their families. It would reduce the social and industrial significance of public holidays. It would discriminate against non-exempt retailers outside the Rundle Mall precinct and it would complicate the uniform trading hours for non-exempt retailers across the metro area by establishing a special zone. For these reasons, I and the government oppose this bill.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (11:13): I am very happy to speak on this bill because to me it is an argument about freedom of choice for people in South Australia. It is a bit of an embarrassment for people to come to Adelaide, the thriving heart of the city at times, and not expect to be able to buy goods and services, when in any other capital city around Australia that we would like to compare ourselves with they would. In Adelaide we cannot. The city heart of Adelaide suffers as a tourism destination and as an opportunity for people to exercise their free will through commercial conduct because of this historical anomaly that leaves it shut. It is an embarrassment.

I commend the member for Adelaide for bringing this bill to the attention of the house because, in doing so, she reflects the aspirations of the traders in the city square. Thousands of businesses are forced to be shut at a time when they would otherwise like to be open. The fact of the matter is that it hurts their commercial prospects. There is an opportunity to increase the net sum of money spent in these shops, and the law as it stands holds against that.

I have a number of relatives who live overseas, and it is unfortunate that when they come to Adelaide sometimes we get labelled with that tag of 'backwater'. I am very proud to live in this city and I am very proud to live in South Australia, but sometimes we do not help ourselves. When John Brumby called South Australia a backwater last year (the Premier of Victoria for, hopefully, no more than a few more days), the outrage was palpable, yet we constantly hear this refrain. Our newspapers report on this, and our interstate newspapers are always happy to take those shots that the shops are shut while there are people lining up in queues to get into Myer in Melbourne. In Adelaide that is just not possible.

We have heard the government's position from the member for Little Para—the government's position today, anyway. I believe they have a state conference on the weekend and who knows what their position will be next week on all sorts of things? I guess that is why we are not using the extra optional sitting week next week. The Labor Party stands against this again. It stands against progress and against Adelaide being the capital that it could be.

That is not surprising, and it is probably one of the reasons it lost the seat of Adelaide at the last election. I guess thousands of traders were fed up with having a member who would not speak in their interests. They should be proud now to have a member for Adelaide who is acting in their interests and advocating with a strong voice for the residents in Adelaide and also the people who do their business in Adelaide.

The people who work in those businesses will surely be advantaged by the opportunity to have increased salaries and increased opportunities to earn more money as more money flows through the system. It is embarrassing when, in certain parts of Adelaide that are not tourism destinations, people could buy those goods and services that they might need.

I remember in the member for Adelaide's initial contribution she talked about a cruise ship docking in Adelaide and the people from that ship turning up in Rundle Mall to find that shops were shut. I imagine they could have gone to any number of shopping centres around Adelaide to purchase their goods and services, and the Labor Party does not seem concerned about the retail workers in those shops.

That would leave those cruise ship passengers—those tourists to Adelaide who could spend a lot of money here and help our economy—with fond memories, I am sure, of those other destinations. When we have our city heart, with everything that we are so proud of about the city, available to these people but they actually are not going to spend any time there, they are not going to be remembering the Adelaide that they could otherwise be remembering. When my family members come here, they are really not the memories that I want them to have.

I think the image of Adelaide is important. Most people when they come to South Australia do have a good time, and I think that people who enjoy our museums, art galleries and the State Library (which is looking resplendent at the moment) are very happy to enjoy Adelaide's facilities but, at those times when the city is shut, they are not going to go there. When you are going somewhere to pursue your tourism destination, you avoid an area if you expect it to be shut, and it is very embarrassing when we have the situation where they find out later, when they arrive on the steps of the mall, that actually they are not supposed to be there—they are there at the wrong time; they are there on the wrong day; their cruise ship docked in Adelaide on the wrong day—and that leaves us in the situation that we are in.

This is something that I remember being discussed quite a lot when I was at university, of course. I went to Adelaide University, and I am very proud of that, as is Madam Deputy Speaker. I share with her the honour of obtaining a bachelor of arts from that great institution, that great sandstone university that adorns North Terrace. I am sure that, if the shops were open, more people from that cruise ship would have done their shopping in Rundle Mall and then maybe crossed the street and had a look at the Mitchell building and the classics museum, which, I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would remember on the first floor of the Mitchell building, as well as the Elder Conservatorium and all the other things that the Adelaide University had to offer—but they do not, because they have to get back on their bus and go back to their cruise ship.

That is a crying shame, quite frankly. The member for Adelaide has done a wonderful thing in bringing this bill forward, and when this comes to a vote in February next year, the Labor Party should have a good hard look at itself, quite frankly. I think that it needs to consider where it is coming from.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: Sorry?

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: Well, maybe it will not come to a vote on 24 February. It is interesting that the Labor members interject that they do not wish this to come to a vote, and I can understand why, because they are embarrassed about their position on this.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Morialta will take his seat. The member for Torrens.

Mrs GERAGHTY: The member for Morialta has just made a very misleading statement, saying that we do not want to vote on the bill. That is not the case at all. My understanding is that the mover is not ready to vote on the bill.

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sit down, member for Morialta. Yes, I uphold that point of order.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I do not need any of that peculiar chuckling.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh dear, member for MacKillop, would you like another point of order?

Mr WILLIAMS: No, I ask for clarification of your ruling. What was the point of order, and did you rule that—

Mrs Geraghty: He was misleading. He made a misleading statement.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Deputy Speaker, if someone is accusing a member of misleading the house, they can only do that, on my understanding, by substantive motion.

Mrs Geraghty: I've actually taken a leaf out of your book.

Mr WILLIAMS: They can only do that by substantive motion, and there was no substantive motion so there is no point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you remember that in future? Have we got you on record? Yes, we have; we have Hansard. I think the member for Morialta should continue with his remarks.

Mr GARDNER: I am very pleased to hear that the Labor Party is so excited about bringing this to a vote, and I look forward to further discussions with many members opposite over the next few months as we get to that opportunity. I was misled by a call from somewhere that someone suggested that, when I said that it might be voted on in February, that might not be the case. Obviously, it is a grave misfortune that we have been led down this track, and I am sorry about that.

The fact is that the Labor Party has a few months to think about this—to think about whether it is interested in economic advancement in the City of Adelaide; whether it is interested in the image that the City of Adelaide leaves for its visitors, tourism operators, the shops, and everyone else who benefits from the commerce and trade that is generated by people going through the City of Adelaide and using its facilities.

It can think about the effect that it has on Adelaide's reputation and the effect that it has on the prosperity of our businesses. Upon reflecting on all those matters that are so important for those businesses and for the way that we all feel as people who live in Adelaide, I would hope that, in February or whatever other month this bill comes to a vote, the Labor Party will come around and use its numbers in this house to ensure its passage so that it can then pass the Legislative Council, the only result of which will surely be that no longer can Adelaide ever be considered a backwater, which it should not be considered now.

No longer will anyone be able to say that with any credibility at all. No longer will any Melbourne newspaper be able to run a photograph of Adelaide shops shut while Melbourne traders are making money, making a killing. I look forward to the Labor Party's soul searching in the months ahead, as they are soul searching for so many things at the moment.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (11:25): I rise to oppose this bill and point out—

Members interjecting:

Mr BIGNELL: Well, I have no problem with the member for Adelaide sticking up for her constituency, but there are some other constituencies in this state that also should be looked after. We should not be looking at shopping hours to be the be all and end all of a tourist experience in South Australia. In fact, if a cruise ship comes in and the shops are closed, perhaps they might come to McLaren Vale for the day, or go to the member for Schubert's electorate for the day, and actually get out and explore South Australia and the great things that we have got here in South Australia.

I tell you what, people are not going to go back interstate or overseas and say, 'Gee, wow! I had a great experience in a store in Rundle Mall that is a national chain store that I could have gone to in Sydney or Melbourne.' They are not going to go back to France or Germany and say, 'Gee, I really enjoyed going to the Body Shop in Rundle Mall.' However, they might go back and tell everyone to come to Adelaide South Australia because they had a great experience at a winery in McLaren Vale, or a winery in Barossa Valley, or somewhere up in the Adelaide Hills, or perhaps they went to Cleland and patted a koala.

People are not caught up on going shopping 24/7. The other thing about the retail side of things is that when people get back overseas or interstate, and they have been to an Adelaide Hills winery, a McLaren Vale winery, or a Barossa Valley winery—

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr BIGNELL: —or even a Coonawarra winery, when they get back to their home base they can go online and order some more wine; so the economy keeps ticking over for South Australia's benefit. I also point to comments from the member for Morialta who sort of thinks that Adelaide is a backwater. Well, that is just not the case. Changing Sunday trading is not going to make—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you sit down, please, the member for Mawson, because the member for Morialta has a point of order.

Mr GARDNER: The member for Mawson has clearly imputed motive and intent on my behalf, and he knows what he said. I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that 127?

Mr GARDNER: I am sure it must be.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, member for Mawson, so that we can carry on in the spirit of—

Mr BIGNELL: Yes, I will quickly withdraw and apologise and clarify what the member for Morialta said. He was saying that, because we are not going to be open, people can continually point to South Australia as being a backwater because our shops are not open on Sunday.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And are you happy with that reading of what you said, member for Morialta?

Mr GARDNER: It is better than it was.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excellent! Carry on, member for Mawson.

Mr BIGNELL: I am not going to change what you said, so that's the truth. If you go to Paris on Sunday you will find the shops are not open. This is the greatest tourist destination city in—

Mr Pederick: Rubbish!

Mr BIGNELL: It's not rubbish, member for Finniss; and perhaps you want to get out and have a look. I lived in Switzerland for two years. The shops there are not open on Sundays, and guess what? People survive. Switzerland, one of the most visited countries in the world; Paris, the most visited city in the world—it makes no difference whether the shops are open or closed on a Sunday.

You are not going to save South Australia's reputation by opening the shops in Rundle Mall on a Sunday, and to suggest so is just an absolute furphy. People on the opposition benches need to get out and have a look at the big wide world out there. This is the way of the world, and what you want to do is have some sort of excuse for opening up the shops on a Sunday.

There are plenty of things to do in this great state in close proximity to the city. Let's let people have some time off, so that they are not working seven days a week and having split shifts with the rest of their families, so that sometimes you will have either the mother or the father working and they do not get time to see each other and spend time together with their families. This is a very important thing.

If you get around the stores over the Christmas break, you hear—as I have heard in the Christmas break in recent years, when you go into local shops and department stores—people complaining about the fact that the husband is away with the kids at the shack, or down at Victor, or over on the Yorke Peninsula having a bit of time off and, yet, the other member of the family is working because they are being forced by an employer to do so or they lose their job.

When you talk about the newspapers printing pictures of empty shops and saying that it is a disgrace that the shops are not open, we also need to look at where the great revenue source of newspapers is: it is from the retail sector. I do not blame the newspapers for sticking up for their constituents, who are the retail owners. It is fair enough for them to do that, but we need to take a balanced view of this and we need to look at the issue of Sunday trading in the context of what happens in the real world, and not come up and say that we will be a backwater if we are not open on Sundays. We need to have time when family can spend time together. There are plenty of opportunities for people to go shopping. There are shopping precincts in South Australia that are open on Sundays, so opening up in the mall is not the be-all and end-all.

I would be quite happy if this came on for a vote. Obviously, the member for Adelaide is not keen for it to be voted on today and we will have to wait until next year.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, 127; again, in the same way that the member for Torrens was concerned when I suggested that the Labor Party did not want to vote. The Liberal Party is very much looking forward to a vote on this. We are, first, looking forward to having many contributions. The member for Mawson has imputed improper motive.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So, what is your actual point of order?

Mr GARDNER: No. 127: the member has made personal reflections on other members.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He has made a reflection on the member for Adelaide? I do not think there is any point of order, but the time is up.

Debate adjourned.