HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-10-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Shop Trading Hours (Extension of Hours) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (12:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

This is an important moment when it comes to what has been a perennial issue for South Australians for a sustained period of time. I think it is fair to say that there has been much public debate for the last decade on the issue of shop trading hours. I am so glad that my government is able to deliver real reform in this regard, real reform that gets the balance right between the interests of consumers, the interests of small businesses and also the interest of the market in place.

Here in South Australia, we have some of the cheapest grocery prices in the land. The cost of living is a topical subject for all our constituents, very topical indeed, but here in South Australia we enjoy a hypercompetitive supermarket industry, and it is hypercompetitive because the players are so diverse.

To give some statistics around this, we know that on the eastern seaboard approximately 8 per cent of the supermarket sector comes from the independents, whereas in South Australia that number approaches almost a third. Interstate, we have the duopoly running supermarkets. In South Australia, we have the duopoly, but we also have a hypercompetitive, large independent sector that accounts for almost a third of the market.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Every state has independents. The member for Chaffey interjects from a position—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey will not interject.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: Well, he is welcome to, because it is always from a position of ignorance. In the Eastern States—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I do not doubt the member for Chaffey's interest in the area, but he would familiarise himself with the fact that it is well known that in the Eastern States the duopoly has a far greater presence within the marketplace in comparison to South Australia. That is worthy of preservation, which is why small business in this state have regularly voiced their opposition, from an ideological position, to total deregulation.

On the politics of the matter, why is it that at election after election after election after election, the Liberal Party of this state has gone to the people of the state saying, 'Endorse us with our total deregulation policy,' and they have been rejected? Then in 2018, the one election they can point to with a victory—where they actually had a swing against them, mind you—after their moment of joyful success in 2018 when they had a swing against them and then won government, they put a piece of legislation into the parliament that was rejected by everybody. It was rejected by everybody except themselves. SA-Best rejected it, the Greens rejected it, Independents rejected it, small business rejected it, everybody rejected it.

Of course, it is not unreasonable to note that, despite all of the protestations, the absolute belligerent consistency of being determined to fail in reform in this area, this is a moment now where the state can celebrate actually getting something through—actually achieving some change. Now we are legislating. Now we are achieving something that those could not do in four years. We are achieving within seven months getting a piece of legislation through the parliament which reforms shop trading hours in this state.

What do those reforms look like? It means a simpler system. Admittedly, those opposite might argue that it remains complex, but it is nonetheless true that it is simpler than the model we had before. It is supported by small business, it is supported by big business, it is supported by consumers and it is supported by workers. If that is not a win-win-win-win-win, then I am not too sure what is.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The member for Chaffey points out that I have an interest in what working people have to think about this. You are absolutely right I do. In fact, I take a great interest in what retail workers have to experience within their workplace, because there are approximately 60,000 to 80,000 of them across the state. The member for Chaffey might not be interested in their view, and he is welcome to that position, but I am interested in their view as much as I am interested in the view of small business. I would encourage members opposite to actually go and talk to small businesses that operate in this sector, because we know what their position is.

Mr Pederick: IGA, Drakes.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: IGA support this position. Drakes support our position. All the independents—and I do not need to name them all—have been opposed to your total deregulation policy, consistently, all of the time.

I see the ever-diligent member for MacKillop dutifully paying attention—respectfully paying attention, as he always does. The member for MacKillop has a familiarity with this issue. I hope he does not mind me raising the good people of Millicent, who have an interest in this issue. In Millicent, they have a competitive marketplace with a strong independent—but also the presence of I think a Woolworths that operates there. Repeatedly, the people of Millicent have been given a direct say on this issue and do you know what their position is? Get the balance right.

In the Liberal heartland of MacKillop, the people of Millicent have said, 'We like having South Australian independently owned businesses in a position where they can compete against the duopoly.' That is not just good for that small business and that is not just good for the town, it is good for the marketplace itself, which brings me back to where I started and that is that keeping prices down should matter to all of us.

We are on the precipice of doing something good. I am going to be very interested to see which way those opposite vote on this issue because they will ultimately be left with a choice: do they want more trading hours, which they say they have been arguing for for what feels like generations, or not? Do they want more trading hours or not?

Mr Whetstone: They want jobs.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The member for Chaffey's argument has always been that more trading hours means more jobs. Well, let's see you vote for more jobs then.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The member for Chaffey interjects with yet another point and I welcome it. He points to the country. Well, let's talk about regional South Australia, where of course they have total deregulation. Let's talk about that.

I am a South Australian shop assistant who resides in metropolitan Adelaide. Let's assume for a moment that the member for Hammond works for Woolworths in metropolitan Adelaide or one of the big DCs. The long weekend public holiday comes around—let's call it the June long weekend for the sake of the argument. You get a bit of time off for the first time in a long time. Where do you go? You go to regional South Australia. You might go to the Riverland and check the river out or you might go up to Moonta on the YP, but you have the ability to go to regional South Australia because you have the time off. You have the long weekend. You might even go down to Encounter Bay. This vote is a really important test of this—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members on my left, could you please listen quietly. If you do not, I will be asking you to leave the chamber.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: This vote is a really important test of those opposite—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you are not encouraging it.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: —because if they vote in favour of the bill that will be consistent with their position in the past. If they vote against the bill, of course, that will mean they are opposed to opening up stores on Sunday mornings, for instance, and that would be a truly extraordinary position, but nonetheless nothing would surprise me.

I would like to put on the record my substantial thanks to those in the other place for expressing their considered judgement and passing a bill in the upper house that has not happened throughout the entirety of the last term of government, which means they must have taken the time to speak to workers' representatives and small businesses, regional and local, to realise that this represents a strong compromise.

I would like to put on the record my thanks to Business SA, our state's Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which has backed in this proposition. I want to thank Business SA for their support. They know that this is a pro-business government actually delivering reform and getting things done. They had the courage in the lead-up to the state election to say that Business SA is opposed to the Liberal Party's total deregulation because they know it is bad for jobs. Business SA know jobs, like we do, and that is why they have backed in this proposition.

I hope that this legislation passes and we get something through the parliament that has not been able to be achieved, that we get something done in seven months that they could not do in four years and that we have a reform that is good for South Australians across the board.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (12:54): On behalf of the opposition, I want to reflect on this bill. As has been made clear, both through this debate and in the media, we obviously welcome aspects of it. The nine to 11 extension of trade on Sunday mornings is a good baby step forward, but we should not pretend. The introduction of legislating Boxing Day and Black Friday is something that has been happening for the last four years anyway, so that is nothing new, but it is good that it is in legislation now.

However, let's be clear about what has been happening anyway in regard to the missed opportunity that sat before us here, to provide shopping hours that are actually for the future. The opposition put forward a range of sensible and pragmatic amendments to this bill that would provide certainty for business, that would make things simpler and remove confusion for customers and that would strike a balance to support all business in South Australia.

They were amendments to extend trade to 6pm on Saturdays and Sundays and to allow trade on select public holidays. To give the parliament some context, of the thousands of responses to our survey that we got back just a handful of people did not support trade on Labour Day, just a handful of people. This is a clear example of the government not listening to the people of South Australia.

The final amendment was to allow all shops to trade on Boxing Day. That was intended to remove what will be a ridiculous situation this coming Boxing Day and Boxing Days moving forward, where we will have shopping centres open but supermarkets closed within them. It is just absurd. It is an example of this Premier giving with one hand and taking with the other. As I said, we have nine to 11 on Sundays, but we are taking away any ability for trade on public holidays in the whole.

What is more, and what this bill is actually about, is what was not consulted on with the broader population in the list the Premier just read out. It is the act of deception captured within this very bill: a rolled-gold right of veto for the SDA and the Labor Party, outside this parliament, to stop trading on public holidays and bind any future minister from any ability to provide an exemption. That is exactly what clause 4 of this bill does.

Earlier in the week, I was at an event with the Premier, funnily enough. I was listening to him speak about how he should be celebrated for returning decision-making to elected officials. Is that the case here? No, that is not the case here, and this is where the Labor government gets exposed for what it really is. They have no consistent principles.

It is like the Wizard of Oz, which is exactly what this government reminds me of. At some point the curtain is going to be pulled back, just like in the movie, to reveal what this government is really all about—and that is populist, short-term politics and dealing with the unions. Make no mistake, every single person on the government benches: we will be very clear that it is up to us on this side to make sure that we work every day to expose these facts to the people of South Australia.

The opposition supports this baby step forward in this bill. Obviously we reject parts of it, and we made that clear through the committee process. However, what is really troubling here is the fact that we have to lament another missed opportunity to fix this mess for the people of South Australia. Why? Because we know that the people of South Australia support our position. It is clear from any poll that has gone out to the public, from any survey that has been conducted, that people want greater flexibility to shop. There is only one party standing in the way—and that is the Labor Party.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Elizabeth, just wait a minute.

Mr ODENWALDER: I was simply going to move that we extend beyond 1 o'clock, but if that is not necessary that is fine.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do we need to extend? No, okay. I was going to give the member the opportunity to extend it; I was not shutting him down.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT