Shop Trading Hours

Ms SAVVAS (Newland) (14:55): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer update the house about the government's position on shop trading hours and whether he is aware of any alternative positions?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer) (14:55): I thank the member for her question. We are all interested in the respective positions of the two major political parties in South Australia when it comes to shop trading hours. Of course, for several years now South Australians have been aware of the Labor Party's position in South Australia when it comes to shop trading hours, because in the lead-up to the last election we reaffirmed our long-held and publicly disclosed position on shop trading hours, and that is that we were up for reform.

In fact, early on in the term of the previous Liberal government the then opposition leader and now Premier made it clear to the then government that we were up for reform and put straight on the table some meaningful changes that would address the community's needs, and we have maintained that position ever since.

The question, though, that we are now confronted with, is: what is the position of those opposite, because nobody seems to know, not just amongst the people of South Australia but, it seems, within the South Australian Liberal Party. Nobody seems to know what the position is of those opposite, because we took a position—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir: standing order 98 requires that the member be responsive to the question. Yes, it is also a convention of this place that government ministers are not responsible for opposition policy positions, something that has been argued by the member for West Torrens—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —on more occasions than I can even remember during the last term of parliament.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! It is a sophisticated point of order which the member for Morialta raises and which engages a number of standing orders. I will listen carefully. I will remind the Treasurer that it has not been a practice to reflect widely on opposition policy, but, of course, the minister can address public affairs.

I have well in mind the words of the question, which invited the Treasurer to reflect on any other alternative policy positions in the state.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your counsel because what I am attempting to do is to inform the house whether I am aware of any alternative positions, and the difficulty for me is that I can't be sure, because we don't have any information or evidence from those opposite.

What we did is that we went out and consulted with the business community, we went out and consulted with the community and we went out and consulted with workers, and we came up with a policy position which not only were we proud to take to the election but one which was endorsed by the representatives of the business community, Business SA.

However, that was not the approach of all groups within parliament, because those opposite in the last term of the Liberal government took a position of total and complete deregulation, because the member for Morialta and his colleagues happened—at that time at least—to believe that if you wake up at 2am on Boxing Day and you want to go to Coles and Woolies and buy a hot cross bun, the parliament—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —should provide for that occurrence.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the member for Morialta on a point of order under 134—

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Hartley!

The Hon. N.F. Cook interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Hurtle Vale, there is a point of order which we are endeavouring to take in.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Sir, notwithstanding your previous ruling, which said that the question itself was paramount, and reflecting potentially that you will consider other standing orders and conventions, the question itself did not go to what happened under previous parliaments. The minister is debating the topic in contravention of standing order 98.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I must say that the member for Morialta has struck on a rich vein, and it is a matter that ought require further consideration than a moment perhaps allows, except to say this: I am listening very carefully. I do understand, of course, that there were policies not only adopted by former oppositions but by former governments of the state. I will listen carefully.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. At that time, the alternative view represented a policy that the Marshall government doggedly refused to walk away from, despite being knocked back by the parliament and opposed by trade unions and Business SA. It was opposed by a significant number of small family businesses that would have been adversely affected.

Unfortunately, the Marshall government refused to yield and the minister would grant trading exemptions on public holidays, resulting in continual bad publicity. They're not my words: they are the words of Christopher Moriarty and John Rowley. As history demonstrates, they are wise words.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You might ask the question: with such wise words, how on earth did the member for Unley defeat Christopher Moriarty in preselection?

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Who is actually making the more substantial contribution to the Liberal Party of South Australia? We can all ruminate on that.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: That's actually completely untrue.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Morialta is called to order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It's completely untrue, is it? Oh, really?

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Christopher Moriarty did not run against David Pisoni for preselection.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Oh, didn't he? Well, the media of South Australia must have got it completely wrong.

The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will refrain from responding to interjections.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, then they must have got it completely wrong, completely wrong. Of course, I wasn't referring to preselection battles down in Finniss, for example, that the member for Morialta might feel more closely about.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, be seated. I will hear the member for Unley on a point of order under 134.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: In the member now speaking about Liberal Party preselections, on which he's incorrect, he is drifting right away from the substance of the question and I fail to see how it's relevant to the question that was asked.

The SPEAKER: I will accept the point of order under standing order 98. There is some force to the point of order. I bring the Treasurer to the question. The Treasurer, in the time remaining.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In summary, we have done the work that those opposite did not do—and continue, it seems, to refuse to do—and that is engage with the community, engage with the business community and engage with the workers who were impacted by the regulation of shop trading hours in South Australia. We're open for change. We made it clear before the election. We stand by those commitments and we look forward to legislating accordingly, if the parliament agrees.