Bills

Retail Trading Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 October 2018.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (11:02): I am pleased to rise to speak to this particular bill. As somebody who has a reasonable amount of experience, in a past life, in the retail industry—and it is on the public record—in my current life I still have some interest in retail properties, so as a landlord I follow quite closely the ebbs and flows and trends within retail. Can I say from the outset that it is not a surprise to people, and they would understand, that I personally cannot see what the fuss is about in deregulating shop trading hours. I spent 18 years in retail, certainly in the country, and the businesses I was involved in stretched from Victor Harbor to Katherine in the Northern Territory. We had businesses in Whyalla, Port Lincoln and Alice Springs as well.

Can I say at the outset that country people are often looked at sometimes as second-class citizens in the eyes of many city folk who have spent, really, no time in the country. Country living offers many advantages. In terms of commuting, certainly in a country town like Whyalla, you can go from one side of the town to the other in a very short period of time, which leads to things like spontaneous entertainment of friends and family. It is not uncommon to front up at somebody's place on Sunday morning for a cup of tea and leave at 10 o'clock at night after you have had a couple of meals and, perhaps, barbecues and stuff, with lots of people congregating, with no prior notice, but it is just fabulous to be able to catch up with people.

This takes me on to the privilege that country people have—all bar, I think, Millicent—where if by chance you had family and friends lob on your doorstep and you were a little embarrassed because you could not offer the hospitality that you would like, you could very easily duck down to the local supermarket and buy whatever you would need to provide food for family and friends. Again, I will say that is a great privilege.

I lived in Whyalla for nearly 40 years and always had that ability. I am not quite sure what separates country people and the way they live their life from city people, who could not possibly handle the ability to shop when they want. Heaven forbid! Those country people out there must be really different because they can actually handle it. These days, I spend my time between Victor Harbor and Adelaide.

It is fabulous when I am in Victor Harbor. If one of my friends pops in at 6 o'clock on Sunday and says, 'It's great to see you,' I can say, 'Why don't I cook you a barbecue or something, rather than going to one of the fantastic pubs in Victor for a meal?' I can shoot over to one of the supermarkets and get whatever I need, and actually provide hospitality, which is what I like to do. That is how I was brought up. If you can look after people, what goes around comes around, and it provides for a pretty good environment.

I am hoping, when I am enjoying the ability to do so in the future down at Victor Harbor, that I do not run into, after 5 o'clock on a Saturday or on a Sunday evening, any of my colleagues who are voting against this bill. They would be taking advantage of the same thing that I take advantage of. I know that a number of my colleagues in the Legislative Council and some in the House of Assembly frequent Victor Harbor during the holidays. I think it would be awkward if I were to run into one of them when they are taking advantage of the ability to, heaven forbid, shop when they have the need.

An advertisement is being run by the 'anti-freedom people', as I call them, whereby a lady in a flower shop is bemoaning the fact that those nasty Liberals are going to destroy her business. She is in a flower shop; she can open whenever she wants. That is my understanding. I am sure the Hon. Rob Lucas, in his summary, will correct me if I am wrong, but small retailers can operate 24/7. I cannot remember ever ordering flowers and sending them to my wife to make up for one of my transgressions—which have been many over our journey—from one of the larger retailers. I do not know whether other members in the chamber may be able to correct me after the debate. Maybe they have rushed down to—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Caltex.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Maybe that is the way you operate, mate, but that does not fly at home for me, I have to say. Any attempt to get out of strife with anything less than quality flowers has never worked for Mrs Stephens. I am very confused, because this lady is bemoaning the fact that the right to shop whenever you want is going to destroy her business, when she has the right to open whenever she wants. I do not see—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: But that's not the issue.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I do not understand why she is involved. What effect is it going to have on her business? She says, 'Oh, it's a dreadful thing,' but I do not understand where her competition is going to come from—heaven forbid she has some competition.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: Coles and Woolies sell flowers.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: As do On The Run. You can get flowers at On The Run 24/7. The reality is, as I said, if you are trying to impress somebody who needs to be impressed, or are seeking forgiveness, I do not think that On The Run flowers do the job; it certainly does not for me. I was just really interested—Rob, you might be able to clear that up for me; I might be terribly wrong about this. All I can say is that I am certainly happy to vote for the deregulation of shop trading hours.

My wife, as a nurse in Whyalla, had limited time because of the different roles she played within our family and with the children, etc. She would finish afternoon shift and it was fabulous for her to be able rip through the grocery shopping at 11 o'clock at night. It was not uncommon to see other shift workers doing the same thing when they had finished their shift, taking advantage of not having to put up with the crowds that there might be during different times of the day.

Donna would rip through and do our grocery shopping on a Thursday night after afternoon shift, and it did not seem to change the retail environment in my city. There were independent retailers. In Whyalla, there is still an independent retailer that does really well because they provide great service and a great range of products. They actually trade whenever they feel like it—heaven forbid—and compete very well with Coles and Woolworths.

I want to put on the record that, from a country person's perspective, this debate is really quite interesting. I wonder if people out in the country sit back and wonder what all the fuss is about when in fact they enjoy these fabulous benefits. Maybe more city people need to get out and live in the country and take advantage of country life. I am sure that the Hon. Clare Scriven has never gone to a supermarket in Mount Gambier—

An honourable member: Millicent.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: No, in Mount Gambier—after what would be normal trading hours in the city, because heaven forbid you would take advantage of that. I am very pleased to support the Liberal Party's position on deregulating trading hours

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: We will be taking photos.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: No, I will not be running around with a camera, I have to say. You would be able to see by the look on my face. One thing that the Hon. Angus Redford told me early in the piece was that people will put up with most things in politics, but hypocrisy is something that they will jump all over you for. With those few words, I look forward to the vote on this bill, and I look forward to the Hon. Mr Lucas summing up. Heaven forbid, maybe common sense will prevail at some stage and we will get to shop when we feel like it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:12): I note that I was not listed to speak today, but I would like to add to the comments of the Hon. Frank Pangallo, who has spoken at length on this issue, and make a brief explanation echoing some of his remarks and also SA-Best's policy more generally. We know SA-Best does not support the deregulation of retail trading hours in SA. We support small independent retailers and we support the little guy against the big end of town. That is the nub of the issue that we are dealing with here today. That is why we are not supporting the government's move to deregulate shop trading hours, including trading hours for car dealers, in South Australia.

Any move to deregulate shop trading hours would absolutely devastate small and medium-sized businesses, including independent stores like IGA that take advantage of big supermarkets having to close early on weekends and open late on Sundays. The legislation proposed by the Liberal government is nothing more than a blatant and aggressive push by the big end of town that would force out small independent retailers. The retail market pie remains the same, and deregulation would only serve to reslice it; it just gets redistributed.

I know from personal experience, as the wife of someone who has spent his entire working life in retail for small independent businesses, that the people most likely to suffer as a result of this are salaried workers in that space. We always hear about deregulation creating more jobs for casual workers. I think that is probably the biggest furphy in this debate because what actually happens is that staff who are on salaries, who work to earn a decent living, are forced to work the extra hours. There is no choice in that. You must do it, because the shops have to stay open longer. That is the reality of the situation. I have had firsthand experience in that situation, so I know that is the case. This argument that we are going to create more casual employment just does not fly.

South Australian independent retailers enjoy stronger local support than in any other state, with over 30 per cent of the market share. SA-Best stands with our independent retailers. Deregulation only favours Coles, Woolworths and Aldi at the expense of South Australia's proud local fruit and veg stores, butchers, bakers, independent small supermarket businesses and other locally owned general retailers.

We strongly oppose any further expansion of trading hours, because it would threaten the viability of smaller operators who are the lifeblood of our community. We believe it is important to support local independent business, and SA-Best is proud to stand alongside them. We are also proud to be standing alongside the opposition and the Greens in this instance. I think that is the position that we all need to be taking in this place and that common sense will prevail today and we will see the vote go the way that it is intended. Thank you.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:15): I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate on shop trading hours. Given, as I understand it, that sadly we will not in all likelihood be going through the committee stage in this debate, where we would be able to explore some of the absurdities of the current trading laws in relation to how they apply in particular industry sectors, my reply at the second reading will be extensive in terms of trying to answer many of the issues raised by members in their contributions and indeed some of the claims that have been made in the community about the legislation that we have before the parliament this morning.

We have heard over the last few weeks and months that, if this legislation passes, it will be the beginning of the end of the world as we know it today. Even though we have seen over very many years extensive reforms in South Australia, there is an inevitability about greater freedom of choice for shop trading hours, whether it be under Liberal or Labor governments.

It was not that long ago—in the early 1990s—that we were having exactly the same debate and exactly the same claims when the government of the day, a Labor government, extended Saturday afternoon trading until 5 o'clock. The world was going to end; that would be the end of independent retailers; no-one would be able to play sport on Saturdays; families would be destroyed—all those claims were made. Trust me, I was there. I was part of that particular debate. All those claims, the same ones we have heard in relation to this matter, related to that momentous move to provide Saturday afternoon trading in 1990.

In 1994 and 1995, under a Liberal government—eventually, after the Liberal Party had tried from opposition to make the changes—shock horror, we actually removed the restrictions on the selling of red meat on weekends. Again, that was going to be the beginning of the end of the world as we knew it. The Liberal Party, championed by a former leader of the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council, Martin Cameron, and indeed a former Liberal minister who has now become a lobbyist for the opposing forces for shop trading reform, was one of the key proponents supporting that particular legislative change.

In 1995, again under a Liberal government, Sunday trading from 11 o'clock until 5 o'clock was introduced into the Adelaide CBD. Again, we heard exactly the same claims being made. In 1998, again under a Liberal government, weeknight trading hours were extended to 9 o'clock in the CBD, and suburban hours were extended to 7 o'clock. Again, we heard the complaints at the time that that would be the beginning of the end of the world as we knew it. It would destroy the independent sector and it would be to the benefit of the big end of town.

Then in 2000, again under a Liberal government, the then Glenelg tourist precinct was established, but the major change was that Sunday trading was allowed in the Adelaide CBD. In 2003, under a Labor government, the act was amended again to extend Sunday trading to the suburbs, to the rest of metropolitan Adelaide. Various other changes were made in 2003.

In 2012, again under a Labor government, there was the introduction of trading on most public holidays in the Adelaide CBD. Again, under a Labor government, as I have advised this council before, because some independent retailers had been trading unlawfully for 10 or 15 years or more on Sundays, the Labor government presided over the abolition of 32 of the proclaimed shopping districts in regional South Australia. So the hypocrisy we have heard in relation to extended trading hours in country areas in relation to the Millicent debate: it was the Labor Party and a Labor minister, minister John Rau, who led the charge in the abolition of 32 of the then proclaimed shopping districts which restricted trading hours in a similar fashion to Millicent.

Experience, history and facts demonstrate that over a period of time there is a sense of inevitability about a greater freedom of choice because, ultimately, the wishes of the consumers will prevail. Ultimately, governments, as that history shows—both Labor and Liberal—in Labor's case they were forced kicking and screaming to recognise what the consumers and what families want. Labor governments, as I indicated there, on a number of occasions have introduced greater freedom of choice in relation to shop trading hours, and former Liberal governments have done the same.

I will address some of these claims, some extraordinary in their nature, that have been made in relation to this particular debate: trust me, we have heard it all before. We have heard the same arguments being repeated for the last 20 years or 30 years in relation to the beginning of the end of the world as we know it today if we were to introduce any further freedom of choice, whether it is Saturday afternoons, whether it is week night evenings, whether it is Sunday trading or whether it is public holidays—on every occasion there has been no new argument introduced in this particular debate that we have not heard on numerous occasions in the past.

As I look at this debate and look at the historical perspective, I have a vision of these shop trading King Canutes standing down at the beach trying to stop the inevitable tidal wave of freedom of choice in shop trading hours engulfing them and swamping them—it is inevitable. As I said, under Labor governments and Liberal governments it has occurred. As I said, you can stand like King Canute down at the beach and try to stop the inevitability of consumers, the people of South Australia saying, 'We want greater freedom of choice. We are not prepared to allow the vested and parochial interests to continue to hold sway.' As we have seen with that history of greater freedom of choice, at some stage there will be greater freedom of choice, or greater freedom of choice than is currently provided for suburban residents and in metropolitan Adelaide in particular.

The inevitability of the greater freedom of choice, as I said, has been demonstrated by recent surveys which have demonstrated overwhelming public support: 75 per cent of people indicating support for greater freedom of choice in terms of shop trading hours reform. That is the sort of tidal wave of support that the opponents of this are going to have to fight against. That is the sort of tidal wave of support that the new Marshall Liberal government has in terms of supporting it and its ongoing battle for shop trading reform, and getting rid of the silly laws, the absurd laws that we currently have before us.

The second point I make in terms of the inevitability is that no-one in the debate, that I could see, was prepared to address one of the elephants in the room, in relation to bricks and mortar retailers, which is, in essence, the 24-hour service stations. Because of loopholes in the legislation potentially, but because of the way the current legislation is drafted, the original concept of a service station selling just petrol to people, being an essential requirement 24 hours a day, which we would all support, has morphed into—as anyone who is prepared to go and have a look—On The Run supermarkets being openly advertised as On The Run supermarkets.

If you go down to an Aldinga On The Run supermarket, or a number of the others, there is a massive sign out the front. It does not say petrol station or service station, it says On The Run supermarket. If you go to their websites they are On The Run supermarkets. There are other franchises, it is not just On The Run, but they are obviously the most well known currently in South Australia.

The reality is, the On The Run supermarkets are trading 24 hours a day and all of these claims—and I will address, again, some of the absurd claims that have been made in relation to this particular reform—could have and should have been applied to the real world as it exists today. On The Runs and their equivalents are popping up all over the place. On The Runs and their equivalents are popping up everywhere because of the convenience factor, because of shift workers, because of the sorts of reasons the Hon. Terry Stephens and others highlighted.

If people are prepared to pay the higher prices for the convenience of shopping 24 hours a day, they do so. They pay extraordinarily larger sums of money for their bread and milk late at night or in the early hours of the morning as they come back from a function because of the convenience factor. If they held off until whatever time the supermarket opened the next day, they would be paying half price in some cases in terms of their bread or their milk. But that is a choice that those shift workers or others, partygoers, or whatever, make in terms of their freedom of choice.

Again, not addressed by anyone in this particular debate, there is this assumption that all of the independent retailers speak with one voice. I accept the fact that the vast majority are strongly supportive of the current independent retailing campaign, but I have highlighted on a number of occasions independent family-owned retailers like the Inglis family at Moana, where they say they want to be able to, in particular during summer, open after 5 o'clock on a Saturday and 5 o'clock on a Sunday. The On The Run just down the road can trade after 5 o'clock on a Saturday and Sunday; they can trade whenever they want to. So when families, in the summertime in particular, come off the beach and want to buy ice creams or bread or milk, or whatever it might happen to be, they are not allowed to open their doors at 5 o'clock even though they want to.

So here is an independent retailer that is pleading for the freedom to open and to compete with the big 24-hour retailer just down the road, the On The Run. The independent retailer says to this government, to me, 'How fair is this that you lot support,' that is not us, but the parliament, 'the big On The Run retailers being able to trade 24 hours a day and being able to sell ice-creams, bread and milk to all of these families coming off the beach at 5 o'clock on a Saturday or 5 o'clock on a Sunday, but you say to me, a small family-owned retailer—not someone who owns 35 or 37 independent retail outlets in South Australia, but someone who owns one at Moana and wants to be able to compete with the On The Runs—why are you preventing me from being able to compete?'

The honest answer to that is: it makes no sense at all. It makes no sense at all. Here is an independent retailer who wants to trade, wants to compete with the big On The Runs, the big 24-hour supermarkets that are growing up down there, but this parliament is evidently hellbent on protecting the privileged position of the On The Run outlets to the disadvantage of a small independent retail outlet like the IGA at Moana.

I will address the issue later in this contribution about the demonising of certain outlets. It is so easy to just talk about Coles and Woolworths. They are easy targets, a bit like taking on politicians, or a bit like taking on banks at the moment—they are easy targets. But no-one highlighted the privileged position that On The Run supermarkets have in South Australia and they are the ones that are ballooning, mushrooming everywhere in Adelaide and South Australia at the moment, encouraged by the former Labor government, which fast-tracked planning arrangements, etc. So do not point the finger of criticism at this Liberal government in relation to the growth of On The Run supermarkets.

Let's be quite clear: I make no criticism of the On The Run franchise or the 24-hour franchises. We actually want them to be able to compete, but we would like everyone else to be able to compete with them—give everyone else the opportunity to compete with the On The Runs or the 24-hour service station franchises that are developing in other states and I am sure will come to South Australia in competition as well.

In talking about this inevitable tidal wave of demand for freedom of choice and the inevitability of competition, I draw members' attention to, and it comes in the area of online trading, an article in The Australian last week which talks about the privileged position of motor traders, which was referred to by a number of people in their contributions. The heading was 'Amazon coming to a car yard near you', and the article quotes Jeff Cole, who has been a strategic adviser in terms of disruption strategies for 30 years or more, advising governments and many of the world's largest and most successful companies on digital strategies. He said:

These days he is a member of the investment committee of the listed Evans & Partners Global Disruption Fund, which now has over $400 million under management and ambitions to grow that to $1billion in the short to medium term.

Mr Cole was asked about the next industry in the world to be 'Amazoned'—a very unfortunate turning a noun into a verb—and the article continues:

—that is, disrupted and transformed by Jeff Bezos's global tech colossus—and his answer is instant.

'I think eventually he will sell every new automobile in North America. A lot of manufacturers feel they are saddled to their dealers. A lot of them now want to get rid of the dealer relationship. Tesla, for instance—

Much loved by the former Labor government, I might note—

does not have dealerships. I think you will see Amazon go to manufacturers and say, "Get out of the dealership business, and turn the dealership into service centres",' the fast-talking American tells The Australian…'Amazon is going to facilitate that if you want to buy a car, you will go online, see the specs, test drive it virtually. Then if you want to really drive it, you will book an appointment online and it will come to you.'

He goes on to explain where he sees—and he is somebody who together with others is putting up to a billion dollars in terms of disruptive technologies, and disrupting established industries and vested interests around the world. The shop trading laws have no impact on the online market. The shop trading laws are blissfully ignorant of what is happening in the real world in relation to online trading.

The National Retail Association put out some figures in relation to online retail growth in South Australia, and the source of this was 'Inside Australian Online Shopping: 2018 eCommerce Industry Paper'. In 2017, South Australia recorded the second highest level of online retail growth throughout Australia. In that year, online retail growth grew by 21.1 per cent, second only to Western Australia—surprise surprise, the other most restrictive in terms of its trading hours legislation at 21.8 per cent, and significantly ahead of the national growth in online retail growth of 19.2 per cent. Sorry, those figures were according to Australia Post, quoted by the National Retail Association.

The reality in the real world in terms of retail as well, is that already retailers are providing either next day or same day delivery of goods and services. We are not talking about days and weeks as some people are talking about; you can get on the blower or online at any hour of the day or night and you can have next day, same day or, in some cases, three-hour deliveries of your goods. Brands such as Coles and The Iconic offer three-hour delivery in Australia. We are advised that some of the local independent retailers also offer similar services—I am not sure about three hours—but will deliver groceries as early as the following day if your order is placed before midnight.

The inevitability and the reality of what is going on at the moment in terms of retail shopping is that online growth is growing and growing, and will continue to grow in terms of the options because of its convenience, and the inevitability of the disruptive technologies which are being implemented, and some of the big players, whether it is an Amazon, or whether it is any number of others that are going to provide the various options.

That is why I say that the opponents of this shop trading reform are not recognising the reality of what is going on in the real world. They stand King Canute-like, trying to stop this tidal wave of people demanding greater freedom of choice and also this tidal wave of disruptive technologies that will just go around and work around what is occurring. We have seen similar debate in relation to online betting as the inevitable decline in on-site betting, such as the TAB agencies and gaming machines, inevitably stabilises and declines as young people in particular bet much more frequently on their mobile phones, without the inconvenience of having to go to an on-site gambling residence.

Retail will be exactly the same: we are seeing it already. This is not me indicating what is occurring; this is me quoting people who are active already in the retail sector and the retail market indicating the reality in terms of the retail market in South Australia. I intend to address the extraordinary claims that have been made by some of the opponents in relation to what they claim are the consequences of this modest reform, following decades of even more comprehensive reform by Labor and Liberal governments.

The first one I want to address is some claims made in the debate this week by the Hon. Mr Darley and supported by the Hon. Ms Franks. The Hon. Mr Darley in his contribution, based his arguments, as I understand it, on a 1977 submission from SAPOL in relation to the implications of the 1977 changes. As I have just highlighted, the world of retail trading in 1977 was such that we were not even selling red meat on weekends, we were not trading on Saturdays and we had no weeknight trading at all anywhere in the metropolitan area. Let me quote, so that I am not accused of misquoting anyone. The Hon. Mr Darley said:

This brings about an interesting point: the safety of employees. We already have a problem in the community where many—I would say most—women feel unsafe walking alone at night. If these women are then rostered on to work a graveyard shift, I have genuine concern about their safety if they finish in the middle of the night. South Australia's public transportation system outside of peak hours is already problematic.

ABC Online quotes Mr Darley, and then quotes the Hon. Ms Franks, and again, so that I am not accused of quoting out of context, let me refer to the transcript of the online report:

Greens MLC, Tammy Franks, said Mr Darley was correct that later shopping hours could put young and female workers at risk. She said it was also a concern for nurses around North Adelaide's Women's and Children's Hospital. 'Why would you think it would be any different with shop staff,' she said. 'Young women still walk through dark streets at night holding a car or a house key thinking that they are going to be attacked.'

I find it extraordinary that honourable members and others could try to seize upon what is an important issue in terms of the safety of young and older woman, and, indeed, anybody late at night—I am not sure that it is necessarily just a women's issue, but it is a safety issue generally. I accept the point in part that the Hon. Mr Darley, supported by the Hon. Ms Franks, is making. But, to use that as one of the reasons to oppose reforms in shop trading hours legislation I think is just extraordinary. I reject it completely and out of hand.

The reality is that we have young women and young men, older women and older men, trading 24 hours a day at the moment at On The Run supermarkets. We already have, in all of regional South Australia and in the CBD, people trading until at 9 o'clock at night. We already have, in relation to some parts—

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Hon. Ms Franks might be a bit uncomfortable about being called out on this issue. I am not going to be deterred because the Hon. Ms Franks has made her statement and she will need to defend it. I will not be deterred by unparliamentary and out of order interjections in relation to this debate. The reality is that we already have a situation where the safety of workers, young and old, male and female, needs to be a consideration for any employer, big or small. If you are in a shopping centre, there needs to be well-lit car parking. Wherever you happen to be, you need to look at the safety and security of your staff.

We already have those issues under the current trading laws because we have 24-hour trading for a large number of workers. These issues already exist and have to be handled as best as we can with a combination of employer action and government and departmental action through agencies like SAPOL and other initiatives like that.

As I said, I then had a series of journalists and media outlets putting questions to me about whether I am jeopardising the safety of women by introducing this particular reform into the parliament. I said, 'Absolutely not. I reject it out of hand.' I think it is an extraordinary claim to make. You can make a whole series of other claims, if you wish, as to why you want to oppose shop trading hours reform, but this particular one has no substance at all.

I want to address some of the issues that the Hon. Mr Pangallo raised in his contribution. In a media release issued on 11 September, he said:

Bunnings sly jobs act just the beginning: SA-BEST warns 'Bunnings bug' will spread with shop trading deregulation.

SA-BEST today warned that more big retailers would resort to copying the 'Bunnings bug' of sending workers home during quiet trading periods and then getting them to make up for lost hours on busy days if shop trading hours were ever deregulated in South Australia.

It sighted the multi-national monolith as the 'consummate example' of how other giant retailers would react if the State Government’s proposed new shop trading laws were introduced—ridiculing claims they would lead to the creation of more jobs.

'Anyone in any doubt of the root outcomes of the Liberal Government’s proposed new shopping laws need look no further than Bunnings' actions,' SA-BEST MLC, Frank Pangallo, said today.

'The retailer giant stands accused of treating its employers—

I think it should be 'employees'—

like pawns in a chess game—moving them to wherever they need to be when trade is busy, cutting them adrift when things quieten, and then calling them back to work when demand picks up again' he said.

'If they don’t do it already, the other influential retailers will do exactly the same thing if shop trading was deregulated in SA.'

There were similar rhetorical flourishes, to use the President's phrase, that populated the rest of the media release, but I think that is enough to give a sense of the claim the Hon. Mr Pangallo was making.

Putting aside the fact that that particular provision has been around for many years—and at this stage I am not aware whether anybody else has included it—it was interesting in terms of some of the media coverage afterwards and the response of the union representing retail workers, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the SDA. Let us remember that this is the union that controls the Australian Labor Party of South Australia, the Labor opposition. The former union boss Peter Malinauskas takes his riding instructions from that union. That is why they are opposing this legislation. The SDA, which also represents Bunnings employees, said:

…an 'extensive' network of delegates will secure another high-quality agreement for staff members as the bank of hours condition—

which is the one the Hon. Mr Pangallo is railing against—

in the enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) has been a 'long standing issue.'

'While the bank of hours has both supporters and detractors amongst Bunnings employees, EBAs containing the condition have historically been strongly voted up, with the 2015 Bunnings EBA attracting a 93.7 per cent yes vote from staff,' said SDA National Secretary Gerard Dwyer.

So the union supported it, the union advocated it, and 93.7 per cent of Bunnings employees supported it. Mr Dwyer goes on to say:

'Additionally, the Bunnings agreement contains a range of above award conditions including enhanced leave, improved minimum hours per day, rest breaks and superior junior rates and redundancy provisions.

'No new agreement comes into force unless there is a majority vote in favour of a new agreement by Bunnings employees.'

Despite claims made by the Hon. Mr Pangallo and some opponents that, 'Bunnings sly jobs act is just the beginning', that it will spread with shop trading deregulation, will be the 'root outcome' of the Liberal government's proposed new law, that employees are being treated 'like pawns in a chess game' and that the influential employers will do the same thing—in essence, 'Look out, this is what the Liberal government is going to introduce'—it was actually supported by the shoppies union. It was actually voted on by 93.7 per cent of the staff in Bunnings, in support of the EBA.

I suspect this might have been part of the national argument within the SDA. I am not sure whether this argument occurs within South Australia, but I will leave others like the Hon. Mr Malinauskas, the Hon. Ms Scriven and the Hon. Ms Bourke to speak with greater authority. Certainly, at a national level, as has been covered by interstate papers, there has been an argument against these sorts of arguments within elements of the SDA. I think there was a breakaway union either established or sought to be established in order to argue against some of these particular provisions.

It is a bit rough to try to demonise Bunnings, as a major employer of a lot of South Australians in particular, on the basis of an agreement which they took to their staff. The shoppies union supported it and nearly 100 per cent of their workers supported it. We, the Liberal government, are being attacked on the basis of, 'Here's the bad world that is going to exist if this particular reform gets through.' It exists under the existing arrangements and, as I said, was supported by the union and the vast majority of employees in Bunnings outlets.

The Hon. Mr Pangallo also raised an issue in relation to someone I have known very well for many years and who is a very successful retailer, Mr Theo Vlassis, who runs an IGA outlet in the metropolitan area. Our paths crossed many, many years ago due to his past association with the Liberal Party. Without knowing for sure, I suspect it is probably less active these days—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: He was a candidate.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, many years ago, but I suspect he is not looking to be a candidate at the moment. I suspect that would be the best way of putting it. The argument made by the Hon. Mr Pangallo, Mr Vlassis and others, including Colin Shearing and the lobbyists on behalf of the independent retailers, is that this will be the beginning of the end of the IGA outlets in the city.

The point I make today, which I have made on a number of occasions, is that the CBD is already deregulated. Mr Vlassis and the IGA outlets in the city are already competing against Coles and Woolworths. Perhaps it might be unknown to the Hon. Mr Pangallo, but there is actually a Coles in the CBD shopping district, there is actually a Woolworths in the CBD, and there are IGA outlets in the CBD. Shock horror! Mr Vlassis and other IGA outlets are successfully competing in the CBD, in a deregulated market, against Coles and Woolworths.

This occurs at the moment, and yet Mr Vlassis and the IGAs in the city are being used as an example of what is wrong with the reform. People have missed the point that the CBD has already been reformed. The CBD has already been reformed by the former Labor government.

One of the kernels of the Liberal argument is to let the suburbs have the same capacity as the CBD has. The CBD argument uses Mr Vlassis in advertising and media statements, etc., when he is already competing and has competed successfully against the Coles and Woolworths in the CBD. I am told that it has either been decided or is in planning that another IGA outlet will open up in the CBD, actually in the central area.

We have another IGA, a bigger one as I understand it, tied up with one of the bigger family groups, opening up in the CBD and competing directly with Coles and Woolworths. Why? Because, they say, 'We provide a niche in the market that people will come and support. We can compete with the Coles and Woolworths, and we will take them on in their own backyard'.

Mr Vlassis and the other IGA outlets—because it is not just his; there are a number in the CBD district, if you have a look at the map—in the city are already competing with Coles and Woolworths, and as I said, as I understand it, either already decided or commenced is a proposal for another, bigger IGA outlet somewhere in or around about the Rundle Mall. Contrary to the claims that this is going to destroy the independent retailers, you actually have the independent retailers taking on the big boys and girls in town and competing with them in the deregulated markets.

The other example I give in relation to that is the example I have given previously of the stupidity we have in Stirling and Mount Barker, and I will come back to that later. Let me just address part of that at the moment. Mount Barker is completely deregulated. You can trade whenever you like. You can actually trade on Christmas Day, Good Friday, ANZAC Day morning, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year—366 in a leap year—if you want to. It is completely free in Mount Barker, just up the road from where we are today.

In that particular locality, we have Coles and Woolies and Aldi but, shock horror, we have in the last two to three years, with a considerable amount of money being spent and a launch in November last year, a brand-new, or renovated, Foodland competing, and competing successfully, against the big boys and girls in Mount Barker. They have not been closed down because of the big boys there. There are competing, and competing successfully, against the big retailers because, again, they have an innovative product. They have their own market niche and they have a group of people who want to support them—who have supported them—and in their business case model they have made a judgement that they will continue to support them over the future. That was a Foodland. There is already a Mount Barker IGA, all of them trading on public holidays, together with Coles and Woolworths.

Just five minutes down the road at Littlehampton is a Foodland, which also trades from 7.30am to 9pm every day of the week, and on public holidays from 7.30am to 9pm as well. The IGAs and the Foodlands in a completely deregulated market, not too far from here, at Mount Barker are taking on the big end of town, as the Hon. Mr Pangallo would put it, and are competing, and competing successfully.

They are not downgrading; they are actually spending lots of their own money on upgrading and renovating their premises to compete, because they believe that the money is well spent because they are going to get their dollars back because of the customer support. In the two areas that we are talking about—Mount Barker, very close, and also the CBD—where we do have deregulation, the IGAs and the Foodlands are competing. They are expanding their options, contrary to the claims that have been made as part of this particular debate.

The next claim I want to address was a claim again made by the Hon. Tammy Franks. I just want to reject it out of hand. In her contribution in the council—and again for fear of being accused of misquoting, let me give you an exact transcript—she said:

The South Australian people will start to ask why the Treasurer prioritises where a fridge is at the local Foodland over yet another death on a worksite.

On behalf of the government, I want to categorically rule that out. I think it is an offensive suggestion.

The new government is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. SafeWork SA has important responsibilities which in the past, under a Labor government, it has not implemented well in relation to investigating work deaths and injuries. There is a new boss in there trying to achieve change in relation to that, but on behalf of the government can I rule out categorically that there will be any diminution of the relative importance of workplace safety and worker deaths because workers are going to be diverted into examining shop trading laws.

There is a very small group within SafeWork SA that has always been responsible for public holidays, shop trading hours laws and those sorts of things. They will continue to have those responsibilities. There is a much bigger group that is responsible for workplace safety. With the reforms that are being implemented at the moment, they will continue to have those particular responsibilities as well.

The Hon. Emily Bourke raised in her contribution a couple of things that I want to address. One of them was a claim she made in relation to the briefing on how the government had come up with the changes. Under this particular model we have moved away from this absurdity of having to measure 400 square metres and 200 square metres. I think the Hon. Clare Scriven said that that should be a relatively easy task and, by inference, what is the problem? The Hon. Emily Bourke said the government's response to why we were introducing this with a cap of 20 employees was, 'We just copied Victoria.'

Again, that is not the complete response. Let me put on the record the complete response. As I indicated in the second reading explanation, every other state has moved away from the square metre rule to a staffing model. Why? Because they had the same problems that we had. How do you actually measure what should or should not be included in a 400 square metre calculation or a 200 square metre calculation?

The staffing model in all the other states varies. In New South Wales the employee cap is four. In Western Australia it is 25. In Victoria it is 20. In Queensland the cap is 30. The Tasmanian cap for all businesses owned by a person or group of persons is 250. So it is correct to say that the number, the 20, that South Australia has proposed in this legislation is the same as the Victorian model. But what needs to be said is that every other state has recognised the absurdity and the complexity of the square metre rule, for reasons I have outlined and some of the members even conceded. Do you include—and the Hon. Clare Scriven said, clearly you should—the entrance areas? But some retailers—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Should exclude, yes, the entrance areas. Some retailers are actually arguing that the area where you purchase cigarettes from, where there is a generally a counter, a cupboard at the back that is closed, should be excluded because you can only see the cigarettes when you open it for the purchase but for the rest of the time you cannot. Therefore, the square metre rule, which in some areas is reasonably significant, should exclude the sale of tobacco products from the calculation of the 400 square metres. Give me a break. That is the sort of absurd argument that we are getting into at the moment.

We have retailers who are arguing to the government that when we calculate this 400 square metres you have to exclude the cigarette counter selling cigarettes. I am interested to know whether the Labor Party will support the fact that the sale of cigarettes within supermarkets should be excluded from the calculation of 400 square metres or not, because that is what some of the independent retailers are arguing.

The other argument going on at the moment is, in particular, the deli counter. The argument is that the goods which are displayed in the glass case, generally at the front of the deli counter, should count as part of the 400 square metre calculation, but the whole area at the back, where you might have meats hanging from hooks, clearly where the meat is being carved so that it can be displayed, or cheeses stored at the back so that they can be brought forward to the counter, that whole area at the back should be excluded from the 400 square metre calculation because that is not part of the supermarket. It is not part of the shop trading laws legislation.

They are the absurd arguments that are going on at the moment. That is the sort of provision that the Labor Party, dictated to by the shoppies union, is supporting. They are saying, 'Why move to a staffing model?' The Labor Party does not see any inherent problem in the square metre rule in relation to how it is applied. Every other state has moved away from it for obvious reasons. All this legislation is seeking to do is to similarly move away from the square metre rule to a staffing model, as exists in every other jurisdiction. The Hon. Ms Bourke also in her contribution said in essence:

While the bill purports to provide protections for workers who may be opposed to working at 3am on a Sunday, it is silent on how workers who seek to keep their public holidays work-free will be treated.

Again, just to make it clear, the bill provides exactly the same protections that are in the current legislation—under a former Labor government. If there are claims in relation to–and it is hard to contemplate under Labor governments the occasions where Labor governments have allowed 24-hour trading in some of the days before Christmas—too many outlets being opened at 3am in the morning, other than the On The Run supermarkets, which are obviously open at 3am on a Sunday, you have all those provisions and problems as exist at the moment and, rightly I guess, you would be applying the same problems to the On The Run supermarkets in terms of employees at 3am on a Sunday in those On The Run supermarkets, or the like, that are being canvassed.

Concluding the contribution from the Hon. Ms Bourke—and I think a number of other members raised this, to be fair—is the matter of the potential impact on jobs. Again, I repeat that following deregulation between 2003 and 2006, Tasmania experienced a 25 per cent growth in retail sales immediately after deregulation there. In that same period, Australiawide growth was only 16 per cent. Whilst no-one can definitively argue causality, certainly whatever evidence exists it is more arguable that the impact of deregulation down there saw an increase, or was a potential reason for the increase in retail sales at a significantly higher level in Tasmania after the deregulation because of those particular figures.

ADS data also showed that the employment in the retail trade in Tasmania increased in that particular period from 2002 to 2003 by 2,000 jobs on a base of 23,000, so just under 10 per cent increase in jobs in that one year. Sorry, this represented an 8.3 per cent retail jobs growth over the year, and the equivalent figures for average jobs growth across all other Tasmanian industries in that same period was 4.3 per cent. In that period immediately after deregulation in Tasmania, the jobs growth in retail grew at double the jobs growth in every other industry sector in South Australia at the time.

The other issue was one that the Hon Mr Pangallo raised, which was the issue of the IGA Foodland outlet at Thebarton. Let me quote, again, the Hon. Mr Pangallo:

This owner, who is stridently opposed to deregulation, had only just finished enduring 12 months of severe disruption and trading losses while road construction workers dilly-dallied streetscaping George Street. Now they are ripping it up—

that is George Street—

and all the new work has further renewed stress and anxiety for this hardworking businessman.

Mr Pangallo went into some rhetorical flourishes both in his press release and others, and accused the government, and myself in particular, of misrepresenting the owner of Foodland at Thebarton and the reasons for why he wanted the extension. Let me quote again, he says:

…the Treasurer recently misrepresented the owner of the Foodland at Thebarton, who had again pleaded with the government for an extension of hours, not because of the coming Christmas period, as the Treasurer twiddled—

I am not sure if that is 'twiddled' or should have been 'tweeted', perhaps?

The Hon. F. Pangallo: Twiddled.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Okay. He continued:

…but because significant roadworks have recommenced outside his car park, and he is desperate to save his business.

Regarding the claim being made by Mr Pangallo, in first instance, as minister, we actually provided the extension of trading hours that the Foodland at Thebarton wanted, that is extended trading hours on weekends and through the week when, rightly, his claim was correct that there was disruption to his worksite because of roadworks in George Street. His Foodland, so I am advised, is on the corner of George Street and Dew Street. He has two entrances, one from George Street and one from Dew Street, and these roadworks, which were significant, were in George Street and were impacting.

He sought exemption and relief. We provided that relief in terms of extended trading hours. What the Hon. Mr Pangallo was saying is—and he may well have been advised of this, but I am just going to point out that he is, in fact, wrong and perhaps his advice was wrong—he says:

Now they are ripping it up—

that is George Street again—

and all the new work has further renewed stress and anxiety…

As of last weekend and at the time when it was rejected a couple of weeks ago, an on-site inspection showed no further works being conducted in George Street.

The Hon. F. Pangallo: I have a video, if you want to have a look.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to have a look. No further works in George Street, no further works in Dew Street. Where there are works is just around the corner in Maria and Albert streets.

The Hon. F. Pangallo: George Street. I have the video.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, in Maria and Albert streets. The on-site inspection last weekend indicates there is no roadworks outside George Street, as claimed by the Hon. Mr Pangallo. The advice that SafeWork SA provided me with was that, whilst it was correct in relation to the first exemption (that there were roadworks impacting one of the entrances to his car park), that there were no roadworks on this occasion impacting on the entrances to his car park, but that there were roadworks around the corner in Maria and Albert streets, I think are the names of the two streets.

As I said, there were a series of claims being made in this debate and publicly in relation to, in that case, me misrepresenting the position of the Foodland at Thebarton. I might say that this particular exemption that applied sought an exemption from here to allow him to trade on public holidays, not just extended hours on weekends, but he wanted to be able to trade on the October long weekend, and I think it goes through to the Christmas period as well. I am not sure whether it got to the new year but it certainly went to the Christmas period in terms of wanting to trade extended hours, weekends, through the week and on public holidays during that particular period.

Good luck to him. What we are seeking to do in this is: why should an individual owner who has a roadwork issue, either immediately out the front of his store or around the corner or whatever it is, have to come cap in hand to a minister? At least with the Liberal minister he has had the opportunity of getting support. A Labor minister dictated to by the shoppies union may well say, 'No, we are not going to do it,' may well say, 'We will not give you that exemption because that will weaken our shop trading laws in South Australia.'

We actually support greater freedom of choice. We would like the Thebarton Foodland operator to open whenever he wants to. He can open whenever he wants to and provide service to his customers, because clearly he is not asking for that on the basis that it is going to do harm to his business. He is asking for it on the basis that it is going to improve his business and improve his dollar flow-through in terms of his turnover. Clearly, his workers are prepared to work, and he wants to open. If customers want to shop, why should he have to come cap in hand every time and plead an excuse or find a new reason why he should get the extended trading hours that he wants? It makes no sense at all.

As an independent retailer, why can he not make a judgement, 'I will open now and on other occasions I won't open. When the shop car park entrance is being impacted, I will open for extended hours to try to keep my turnover up, but when the car park is not being impacted, I will go back to my normal trading hours.' Why should it not be a judgement for the individual retailer?

The other issue that has been raised by a number of members, in particular Labor members and a number of crossbenchers as well, has been the issue of the impact on workers (and their families) having to work on some public holidays. My challenge to the Labor Party in particular is where were they, or where are they now in saying the same thing to those workers (and their families) who have to work on public holidays in all of regional South Australia, including Mount Barker and in the CBD? Why are the workers in the suburbs of Marion, Tea Tree Gully, Elizabeth, Noarlunga and Port Adelaide different from the workers (and their families) who have to work in Adelaide, Mount Barker, Mount Gambier, Whyalla, Port Lincoln or the Riverland?

Why is it that there is a special category of worker and their family that deserves this particular protection but the Labor Party and the shoppies union says, 'Well, they deserve special protection but too bad for the workers who work in the CBD and in all of regional South Australia and their families.' No member of the Labor Party will address that issue, because there is no answer to it. That is the reason they will not address it. It is just the hypocrisy of the Labor Party and the shoppies union in relation to these particular issues. There is one quality, one group of workers and their families who deserve protection but who gives a continental about all the other workers and their families?

The Labor Party does not. They can work, it can impact on their families, they cannot travel to the Riverland, they cannot play sport and all the other claims that have been made about the impact of this reform or legislation. We heard nothing from the Labor Party when they were abolishing 32 of the 37 proclaimed shopping districts in regional areas of South Australia or when they provided extended trading hours in the central business district of Adelaide.

As members would know, it is not just workers who live in Adelaide who work in the CBD on public holidays; there are workers in the suburbs who have to come into Adelaide to work. So why is it that a worker who lives in Tea Tree Gully and has a job in the CBD is not worthy of the protection the Labor Party says they deserve, but that if he or she has a job at Tea Tree Plaza, they should be protected from having to work on a public holiday? Again, there was no response and there will be no response from the Labor Party in relation to these issues.

I want to turn now to some of the criticisms that have been made by members in relation to what has been alleged as a lack of consultation on this issue. I want to put on the public record that I have been engaged in this debate for decades, but in recent times I have had countless meetings, discussions, telephone calls, email exchanges and text message exchanges with the two lobbyists on behalf of the independent retailers, Mr Colin Shearing and former minister, Graham Ingerson, in relation to these issues. Maybe at some stage some of those emails and texts would bear closer discussion, but certainly today is not the occasion for that.

I have had meetings organised by the lobbyists, together with Liberal leaders over the years, in recent times and dating back prior to the 2010 election, where the lobbyists, together with representatives of Drakes, Romeos and other independent retailers, met with the former leader, Isobel Redmond, and myself in relation to shop trading reform. To be fair, the independent retailers, the same as the shoppies union, have always opposed shop trading reforms. There is nothing new. It is new for the Hon. Mr Ingerson, because in 1997 or 1998 I remember circulating to him, after he had lobbied me the first time, a copy of his very persuasive speech, as a former minister in the Liberal government, arguing passionately for the reform of shop trading hours in South Australia.

But the world moves on, and people are entitled to take different positions as the world moves. I had a series of meetings dating back prior to 2010, because the independent retailers as a group knew the general policy position of the Liberal Party, and prior to 2010, prior to 2014 and prior to 2018 met extensively and, as I said, we had a free exchange of text messages, emails and correspondence all through that period.

I do not think anyone can say with any validity that there has been no consultation in relation to these issues. You can criticise the government's position, but you have no substance at all to say that there has been no discussion or consultation in relation to the government's position on these issues.

The next matter I want to address is the issue of costs. I pay tribute to great South Australian businesspeople like Roger Drake: Drakey has been very successful in growing a small business to a very successful business. I think he still describes himself as a master of public perception as a small businessman. I think he has more than 35 outlets in South Australia, and somewhere around 15 or 17 in Queensland. Good luck to him; he is a great South Australian businessman and he is entitled to every success.

There are others in the independent retail group, like Romeos, the Chapleys and others, who also have been very successful, and good luck to them. They have carved out a niche in the market, and a niche that is supported. They provide a difference in product from the bigger retailers.

The point that I have made before—and I want to put some facts on the record today in terms of independent material—is that it is fine for people in this chamber, who I would characterise as being in the more comfortable, better off or well-off sections of the South Australian community. Each of us are on at least just under a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year, so we are in the top percentile of income earners in South Australia.

Many come to this debate from that particular comfortable or well-off perspective. The notion of being able to make choices to buy more expensive goods and products is an easier choice for someone who is comfortable and well off. But, I want to speak up on behalf of the very many South Australians who are not comfortable and are not well off: the very many South Australians who are struggling to put food on their table each and every day of the week, and their voice is not heard in this particular debate; their voice is not being reflected in this debate.

Let me put on the record some independent analysis. This is a price survey done in March 2017 by Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), an analysis about the indicative cost of the weekly shopping trolley in capital cities. This independent survey found that the weekly shopping trolley cost for groceries and other items in the supermarket sector in Adelaide in March 2017 is $217.20. The indicative cost in what is referred to as a mid-priced store—this is in the supermarket area—is $288.50. The same shopping trolley of goods costs $71.30 more on a weekly basis in one of these mid-priced stores in South Australia. It is 24.7 per cent higher.

For those South Australian families who are struggling to put food and groceries on their kids' table, $71 a week is a significant difference. Why should struggling families not have the option, if they so choose, of going to the lower-priced retail outlet and spending up to $71 a week less on their food and groceries? Why should they not be able to go along to a lower-priced retail outlet and save up to $70 a week on a public holiday—in the suburbs of Port Adelaide, Noarlunga, Elizabeth and Munno Para—or early on a Sunday morning if they are a shift worker, or whatever it is, or later on a Saturday night or Sunday night if they are a shift worker?

It is easy for those of you who are comfortable and well off here, who can spend the money at whatever retail outlet you like because you make a choice—and good luck to you—because you have the dollars to be able to do it. Many other South Australians also have the capacity to do that, and good luck to them. There is a niche in the market which can be provided by these particular retail outlets. Why should trading laws prevent people who are struggling from week to week, from day to day, from getting the cheapest priced goods whenever they want to go and shop? Why should you stop them? Why should you have to live in Mount Barker to be able to do it, or why should you have to live in the Adelaide CBD to do it? Why should you have to do that sort of thing?

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, Mr President, you get to squeal on your own—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Restrain yourself, Leader of the Opposition!

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Leader of the Opposition, you are not going to get a question in question time. Right? That is the only sanction I can give at the moment. I will not have you intervene in a debate at this time of the debate. This is the summing-up of the debate.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The reason why the Labor Party starts squealing in relation to this is because the soft underbelly of the Labor Party's argument has been exposed. They are out there supporting themselves and others who have the satisfaction and capacity to make a choice as to which particular shop they will shop at. Because some people who are struggling do not have the financial capacity and want to save up to $70 a week on their groceries, because they want to do that, the Labor Party is unprepared to support them.

The other thing I will put on the record is something which goes to show the support in the community, and how many in this particular chamber are unrepresentative about what consumers actually want. Roy Morgan released some research in July this year which I must admit stunned me. The summary says:

Supermarket brand ALDI is now the most trusted brand in Australia with improvements in ALDI's Net Trust Score—

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: In Australia?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In Australia, yes. South Australia is part of Australia. I am not sure whether the Hon. Mr Hanson has quite worked that out yet—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: He hasn't quite worked that out yet, Mr President. This is indicating that—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: What this is indicating, Mr President, is that in relation to this independent research on the trustworthiness of brands—it looked at groups; it was not just retail outlets. It looked at Kmart, Bunnings, Qantas, Bendigo Bank, NRMA, the ABC, IGA, Australia Post and ING. It looked at a whole range of brands in a net trust score. People in this chamber have to recognise what the real people out in the community are saying.

If you had asked me, 'What is the most trusted brand in Australia?' I never would have contemplated that Aldi would have been voted by the people of Australia as the most trusted brand. What the Labor Party misses, and what Roy Morgan highlights, is that the success of Aldi's entrance to the Australian market has been built not only on discount prices but also a reputation for reliability and meeting the needs of consumers. The Labor Party and others, as they seek to demonise anyone other than the independent retailers—

The Hon. E.S. Bourke interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As you seek to demonise anyone who is not an independent retailer in South Australia, you are missing the point of what is going on out there in the real world. There are a lot of struggling South Australian and Australian families who appreciate the fact that they can buy goods at a lower price because they are struggling to make ends meet. Good luck to the South Australians and Australians who have the money to make consumer choices in terms of their retail outlets, but do not deny the reality of the real world.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You have lost touch with your base—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: They have lost touch with their base, Mr President, in relation to this particular issue, and it is the South Australian Liberal government—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear the member.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The South Australian Liberal government is standing up for the little people: the consumers who are struggling to make ends meet, the consumers who want cheap grocery prices, and the consumers who are struggling to feed their children. We are delighted to stand arm in arm with those consumers and struggling families in South Australia.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr President, in relation to—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think we have agitated the troops. We have upset those on the other side.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: They do not like the home truths being sheeted home to them.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot hear the member.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You can assure yourself of preselection with the shoppies union if you get up, jump up and down and do the right thing. I am sure the Hon. Mr Wortley and others—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I again want to highlight the fact that a significant number of independent retailers are trading lawfully, and I am advised unlawfully in some cases, on public holidays, before 11 o'clock on Sundays and extended hours through the week. What I do want to say, in relation to the list I am highlighting here, is that a number of these outlets are trading lawfully because they may well be under 400 square metres.

I do want to highlight the fact that a reasonable number of independent retail outlets in the suburbs are currently choosing to trade on public holidays. They are also choosing to trade in regional areas, when they have the choice to trade on public holidays or not. They are not required to, but they are choosing to trade in those particular areas.

If one goes to the Drakes group of stores for the October long weekend, for example, the following stores were all open from 9 o'clock to 5 o'clock on the Labor Day public holiday in October: the Bridge Road Market, from 7.30am to 10pm; in a regional area, Drakes Ardrossan Foodland, 9pm to 5pm; the Glen Osmond Road Market, from 7am to 10pm; and Drakes Grange Foodland, from 7.30am to 10pm.

Drakes in both Kingscote and Moonta were open: Kingscote from 10am to 4pm, and Moonta from 8am to 8pm. Drakes at Port Lincoln was open from 8am to 8pm. Drakes Sunnybrook in the metro area was open from 7.30am to 10pm on that public holiday, Drakes Walkley Heights Foodland from 7.30am to 9pm, Drakes Wallaroo Foodland from 7.30am to 9pm, and Drakes West Beach Foodland from 7.30am to 10pm.

If you look at the very many Drakes stores in Queensland—I think I said 17, but it looks like it is way more than that; it may well be over 20 by now—all of those stores traded normal hours or extended hours on the October long weekend. All 20 or so stores in Queensland chose to open during those hours.

Drakes and the other independent retailers are railing against extended trading hours and the impact it will have on families and workers, but all of those outlets in Adelaide—and others—choose as a business decision to trade when it is not required on public holidays. Clearly, Mr Drake and his company want to trade. Clearly, the customers in those suburbs around Glen Osmond, Sunnybrook and Walkley Heights and various other areas want to be able to shop extended hours. Some of them are starting at 7.30am on a public holiday.

Where are the Labor Party and the opponents railing against the impact on workers and families because the independent retailers in those areas have chosen to trade on public holidays? All the government's proposal is seeking to do is to allow the other retailers in South Australia and the suburbs to open and compete with a number of these Drakes and other independent retail outlets which are already opening.

As I said, some of them, on my advice, are over 400 square metres and have been trading, up until recently, unlawfully on public holidays and for extended hours. The hypocrisy, again, of the Labor Party and the opponents in relation to this is that it seems to be okay for independent retail outlets like Drakes to 'force their workers'—to use the Labor Party's view—and families to work in those communities on public holidays, but it is somehow wrong for somebody else to have the opportunity to trade in competition with Foodland and IGA.

This is not a case where Foodlands are not actually opening and they are going to be forced to open because a Coles or a Woolworths opens. This is a case where Coles and Woolworths are not open and Foodland has decided that the customer demand is so strong and the business case is so strong and their workers are so supportive—because they want the extra hours and the extra dollars—that they decide to open anyway. No-one is forcing them; they have just made the commercial judgement, the business judgement, to trade. Good luck to them. We want to see more of it. We just think everyone should be given the opportunity, not just them, and not just the IGA supermarkets because there is a loophole in the legislation through which they have been able to work.

I have highlighted the problems of the 24-hour service stations; I will not repeat that. I have referred to the absurdity of the situation in the hills, where Mount Barker is completely deregulated and a few kilometres down the road in Stirling you have a completely regulated shop trading market.

If anyone wants to go to Mount Barker, they can shop till they drop, to use the phrase, whenever they want, with Aldis, Woolworths, Foodlands, IGAs and whatever else there is. A few kilometres away—because there is line drawn between Stirling and Mount Barker—Mount Barker is allowed to do whatever it likes, but Stirling is not allowed. The absurdity of that has not been defended by anybody in the Labor Party or any of the opponents of the legislation. The reason why is there is just no response in relation to that.

Let me wrap up. As I said, much of this we would have discussed during the committee stage of the debate. Because, I am advised, we are unlikely to see a committee stage of the debate, I have taken the opportunity to extensively reply to all the claims that have been made in the debate. I will wrap up by saying that I think it is a tragedy for South Australia that what we see in South Australia in this particular case is a perfect indication of a problem when you have a union boss running a major political party. In the Hon. Mr Malinauskas, the member for Croydon, we have a former union boss, a union heavy of the shoppies union in South Australia. He has to do what the union tells him to do. There are so many people in this chamber and another chamber whose very preselections are reliant on the shoppies union supporting them. They have to do what the shoppies union tells them to do.

That is the problem you have with a party like the Labor Party purporting to be an alternative government, which is incapable of actually sitting back dispassionately and making a judgement in the public interest. The struggling families who might want to see cheaper grocery bills every week have to put that aside because the new bosses in the shoppies union have told the old boss of the shoppies union that he and the Labor Party are not allowed to support any further reform in relation to shop trading hours.

Can I say that today, from the government's viewpoint, is not the end of the battle. Today is the start of a long, relentless, continuous campaign leading through to 2022. We will be campaigning to provide the freedom of choice that more than 75 per cent of South Australians are demanding. As I said, this is not the end of the battle. We will commence a long, ongoing, continuing campaign in terms of sensible economic reform, sensible freedom of choice, because 75 per cent of South Australians want to see this sort of choice.

I will leave members with this question: why shouldn't the families in Elizabeth, Munno Para, Tea Tree Gully, Port Adelaide, Noarlunga and Marion have the same freedom of choice in terms of when they shop and where they shop as the residents in Adelaide and the residents in virtually every regional area of South Australia starting from Mount Barker have? That is a question the Labor Party cannot answer and will not answer.

The council divided on the second reading:

While the division was in progress:

The PRESIDENT: In the gallery, you are not entitled to take pictures of members who are seated.

Ayes 8

Noes 13

Majority 5

Second reading thus negatived.

There being a disturbance in the chamber:

The PRESIDENT: Clapping is out of order.