HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-10-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Retail Trading Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 July 2018.)

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (15:41): 'It's a matter of time.' These were the five simple words provided to me during a government briefing—the five words they used to sell why the government is pushing the Retail Trading Bill 2018. I am guessing this was also the Liberal government's approach to Holden when they drove them out of South Australia.

I would argue that the right argument is the argument that backs South Australia. It is the argument that backs South Australia's largest employer: small businesses. It backs farmers who rely on local independent retailers to stock their produce, and most importantly, it backs hardworking South Australians. That is why I stand to oppose the government's Retail Trading Bill 2018 and back the current balance that backs South Australia's retailers, farmers and workers.

The Liberal Party's election platform had their commitment to deregulate shop trading hours at the top of their to-do list. So important was this policy that, if successful at the March election, they promised to introduce the legislation within the Liberal government's first 100 days. Instead, they have left South Australian small businesses in limbo by delaying the debate on shop trading hours.

We have heard the calls to back the government's mandate pushed through the media. I would argue that the government has no mandate on shop trading hours. Why? Because, like the Liberal Party, parties represented in this chamber took a position to the election on trading hours, and it is of no surprise that the only party standing with large interstate retail chains at the election was the Liberal Party.

More South Australians voted for the current trading laws at the 2018 election than the Liberals' position to deregulate trading hours allowing shops to trade every day of the week between midnight and 9pm except on Good Friday, Christmas Day and ANZAC Day morning. I repeat: from midnight to 9pm. Claims of a mandate on this bill are completely baseless because the legislation tabled in this parliament goes so much further.

With little to no consultation with local retailers, the Liberal government has tabled legislation to deregulate trading hours to a much further extent than their own election commitment, opening all metropolitan stores 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with larger stores (including interstate chains) only closing on Christmas Day, Good Friday and ANZAC Day morning. It is far from a balance in my books.

When it comes to this bill, it is not the size that matters; it is the number of people you employ. The current Shop Trading Hours Act 1977 exempts all shops with a floor area of less than 200 square metres and shops selling foodstuffs are exempt from the act if they have a floor area of less than 400 square metres. Under the current act, I believe about 80 per cent of all South Australian stores can currently trade 24/7.

The Retail Trading Bill 2018 does something a little extraordinary. The government would have us all believe that they are in this to create jobs for South Australians; however, by replacing the definition of an exempt shop to be defined by the number of employees, the government has not only turned its back on local businesses, but workers. As stated under the interpretation of what an exempt shop is:

(b) a shop that has no more than 20 persons employed and working in the shop, provided that the total number of persons employed and working in the same shopkeeper’s shops in South Australia during the immediately preceding period of 7 consecutive trading days did not exceed 100 (when calculated in accordance with subsection (2)(b));

When I recently asked about the government's response behind the magical cap of 20 employees, I was provided with the answer, 'We just copied Victoria.' Again, no consultation, just a copy and paste of the Victorian act, with no consideration of the ramifications an employment cap might have in South Australia. We are not Victoria. Giving business owners a choice to open when they choose, and consumers a choice to shop when they want, and then of course the added line of 'workers are prepared to work', these are the words we have heard repeated time and time again by the Liberal Party.

The throwaway lines that the Liberal Party uses when referring to a piece of legislation have the potential to do irreversible damage at both an economic and social level, and these words are insulting to local business owners, farmers and workers who will be impacted by 24/7 trading. Of course, and of no surprise, the line that grates me the most is 'workers are prepared to work', or as suggested under section 5(1) of the bill:

A person who is employed to work in a shop in the metropolitan area is not required to work on a Sunday unless the person has freely elected to work on that day.

I raise this particular section of the bill because, unlike New South Wales, the Liberal government is not proposing any form of punishment for an employer who, in fact, breaches the section. The words printed under 'Staffing on Sundays' in the bill cannot be enforced, there is no punishment and it is a disgrace that the Treasurer and the government have tried to hoodwink hardworking South Australians into believing they have their interests at heart.

What is further disturbing are the lessons from interstate. Three years ago, the New South Wales Retail Trading Amendment Act 2015 commenced. As part of the changes, an independent review was conducted two years after Boxing Day shopping hours commenced in New South Wales. The review recommended that more work was required to ensure workers' rights were protected. The review further found that one in five workers felt coerced into working on Boxing Day. The member for Croydon and the Labor leader has often stated that, if the government introduces legislation that does not impact working families, the opposition will seek to work constructively with the government.

The Retail Trading Bill 2018 unfortunately goes to the core of removing something that is fundamental to hardworking families, and that is time. There are few, if any, protections in the Liberal government's Retail Trading Bill 2018 which prevent workers from being coerced to work on a Sunday or public holidays. 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.

On this point, the bill merely notes the commonwealth scheme, and specifically section 114 of the Fair Work Act. This section of the commonwealth act provides little practical assistance for retail workers. It requires workers to undertake an onerous process of demonstrating that their employer's request is unreasonable or that their own refusal is reasonable. Arguing these points across a power divide, which we all know exists in the retail sector, is an extremely difficult task for any employee.

The Liberal government is reliant on throwaway lines to sell the message that is not backed by any solid economic modelling and is not backed by the stories of hardworking South Australians. Never is there a name, a face or a story behind the policy. However, I have seen the faces, learnt the names and heard the stories—stories like that of Brendan from Radio Rentals, who says, 'Deregulated trading hours would mean I'd miss out on time with my kids outside of school.' Janet from Woolworths says:

I'm a single parent working in retail. I work through school holidays and start early so I can help my son who has a learning difficulty with his homework. Public holidays are our odd extra chill out days together.

This sort of family time is just as important for retail workers as everybody else. Retail workers are not the worker bees of our society. Everybody matters just as much as the big business owners and their shareholders.

The Treasurer himself confirmed in this very chamber that the government has not undertaken any economic modelling on the impact of deregulated trading hours and how it will impact South Australia. In fact, while claiming regional communities would not be impacted by statewide deregulation, the Treasurer said, 'The modelling I use is common sense.'

Small businesses are the state's largest employer. They are the economy's backbone, and they deserve much more than the Treasurer's so-called 'common sense' when it comes to keeping their doors open. In South Australia, we have something pretty unique. We have the most diverse retail sector, with genuine independent options. We have some of the world's greatest independent grocers, and they are the envy of the Eastern States. In fact, I believe we have more independent retailers in South Australia than in any other state.

The doors of the local retailer have been kept open by a balance that protects locals, a balance South Australian retailers are calling to keep, a balance that backs hardworking South Australians. I have not had South Australian businesses knocking on my door to back the government. They have been backing the balance that keeps local businesses' doors open and their profits here in South Australia.

The government's closed-door approach to this bill needs to be raised. As I mentioned earlier, the Liberal government committed itself to a mandate to bring this debate within its first 100 days. They gave South Australian small businesses a deadline to work towards, to seek clarity about the future of their businesses. But sadly, the government was only providing lip service.

We need to end the uncertainty created by this government so that local retailers and workers can get on with keeping the doors of their local stores open. Companies like Aussie Apricots and its 20 staff are experiencing uncertainties; so too are small businesses like Aquasun Produce, and so too are the second-generation almond growers at Waikerie.

Local South Australian businesses made their voices heard by doing something extraordinary. Florists, butchers and independent retailers put not only their name but their face to a campaign to call on the government to keep the current balance. The extreme lengths these business owners, like Cathy from Blooms 'n' Bakes and Franz Knoll from Barossa Fine Foods, had to go to, not only to be listened to but, most importantly, to be heard, is incredibly disappointing.

The government has closed its door on South Australian retailers and they might just close their doors permanently if this bill progresses. Labor is backing SA shops, farms and suppliers that keep their profits here in South Australia. We are backing South Australian jobs.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (15:54): Today I rise obviously to speak about the Marshall Liberal government's attack on South Australian small businesses. That may sound a little dramatic, but let's not kid ourselves: the reasons behind this legislation coming into being are all ideological. They are born on the misconception of those opposite that we live in a 24/7 world where we race each other to the bottom to catch the dollar. Well, Mr President, we do not.

The fact is that right now, as I give this speech, you could find shops closed in London, Berlin or Paris, especially if it is a Sunday or a public holiday, but of course we do not do that here. Similarly, if you wanted to look closer to home, you could find that in Western Australia or Queensland the shop trading hours are also regulated, just as we do here now. If it is good enough for Berlin, if it is good enough for Paris, if it is good enough for Perth, then why is it not okay for Adelaide?

The Marshall Liberal government's shop deregulation proposal does not make sense for small businesses in South Australia. Again, let's not kid ourselves: the retail industry will be affected by these changes. They will impact workers on the front lines who want to spend time with their family, the employers of those workers who cannot compete with larger competitors, and the suppliers and farmers who supply those businesses. Shop deregulation in this state in practice will force small businesses and family-run businesses to stay open much longer which, other than lacking an appropriate social licence in our community, will also mean that they lose their small business's competitive edge and market share to larger, multinational or interstate conglomerates.

In a state that runs on small business, in a state that runs on agriculture and produce, in a state that wants to see itself as family friendly, and with no economic analysis to back this up, why would we put all of this at risk to satisfy an ill thought out ideological thought bubble? What those opposite do not seem to understand is that, when you propose changes, it is actually best to make sure that you speak to those who you are going to affect, and to be flexible in terms of the feedback you might get, but we have seen none of that from this government.

Unlike them, over the last few months, I have been meeting with small businesses and shop operators across South Australia. Business owners and operators on the Norwood Parade all told me what this legislation would mean for their small businesses. These small businesses all said that they do not have the capacity to absorb the additional operating costs of staying open from midnight until 9pm Monday to Friday, Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. This issue of shop deregulation will not only hurt small business owners on The Parade in Norwood, in Steven Marshall's own seat—or should I say, the member for Dunstan—but it will also impact on regional communities.

To better understand the passion that regional communities feel about shop deregulation, I visited the South-East town of Millicent with the Hon. Clare Scriven. My visit to Millicent demonstrated to me the community's true feelings towards shop deregulation: they are dead against it. Indeed, in February 2017, the Australian Electoral Commission conducted a postal vote for the residents of the South-East town to have their say on deregulating shop trading hours and the impacts of expanding trading hours that would occur in their community. Of course, I am pleased to advise the chamber that the Millicent residents overwhelmingly voted, with almost 80 per cent of people voting no.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: What was that amount?

The Hon. J.E. HANSON: It was 80 per cent. This no vote comes on the back of a similar 2006 vote in Millicent where locals voted no again against shop deregulation in their town. Millicent locals know the true value of protecting small businesses, supporting local family-run shops and local farmers and producers, and so does the Labor Party. However, to those opposite these concerns are falling on deaf ears. It is all just ideology. There is no negotiation. It is the multinational highway or it is nothing. Well, that is not good enough. I will not vote for it and I encourage all others to do the same.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (15:59): I rise to make some brief remarks against this bill. Members will not be surprised to hear me take this position, particularly given my proud connection to the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA). It is my opinion that the economic benefits to the state are exaggerated and the negative social consequences would be profound for small businesses and everyday workers. I will take the opportunity to outline some of these negative consequences in my contribution today.

The current laws stipulate that any retailer with floor space above 400 square metres is prohibited from trading after 5pm on Saturdays and Sundays and all day on public holidays. The changes proposed by the government would allow all businesses to trade irrespective of size, between 12am and 9pm, seven days a week, with the only exceptions being Christmas Day, Good Friday and ANZAC Day morning.

Our independents, like the IGAs and Foodlands but, even more importantly, the few corner delis that still exist, are able to trade for longer hours. Many of these businesses rely on the extra income from being able to operate when major retail chains are forced to shut. Why, then, is this government insisting on making changes that would disproportionately benefit the big end of town at the expense of small businesses operated by mums and dads? Independent supermarkets currently hold 32 per cent of the market share, which is a good amount by Australian standards.

I envisage this strong market share being negatively affected if the government's proposed changes become law. This is because I believe that, at the end of the day, consumers will simply spread their shopping across the extra hours. I believe that the reports about growth in spending throughout the retail sector are overstated for this very reason. More importantly, some of our state's lowest paid workers are being left in the lurch by this government. The government continues to insist that workers do not have to work irregular hours if they do not want to. While it is easy to legislate that, it is much harder to enforce.

It would be easy, for example, for a casual or part-time employee of Coles or Woolworths to have their hours cut by management. Given that hours are variable for these workers from week to week, it would be easy for management to take retribution against employees who they see as being unwilling to work on public holidays or weekends. If a worker were to challenge this type of blackmail, what avenues would they have to assist them in making their case? Furthermore, there is nothing in this bill that I can see that penalises an employer for bullying or harassing an employee to work a shift they do not want. There are no fines—nothing.

What concerns me is that, federally, the conservative side of politics is constantly trying to remove penalty rates for retail workers. It is all well and good for the Treasurer to say that he and his government support the retention of penalty rates but, given the position of his federal colleagues, South Australian workers risk being hit with a double whammy: longer and more unsociable hours of work with less pay. It is for all the reasons I have outlined that I will not be supporting the bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (16:04): I rise today to speak against the government's proposed deregulation of shop trading hours. Thousands of small business owners across our state are vehemently opposed to this legislation. They are opposed to it because they know that the Marshall Liberal government's plan will benefit big supermarket chains at the expense of small family-owned businesses here in our home state, and this will mean job losses.

Deregulation will force small South Australian shops to stay open longer and lose market share to big interstate shopping centre giants, so the big interstate companies will expand at the expense of local, family-owned companies. They will kill off competition, and South Australian consumers will pay higher prices. If independent retailers are pushed out of the marketplace there is a serious risk to the South Australian brands and produce being stocked in those smaller supermarkets, and this means growers will be put at substantial risk.

As a Limestone Coast local I speak to residents and business owners throughout the region. Let me tell you, they are not happy with the Marshall Liberal government's plan, particularly in Millicent. I have had petitions with more than 1,000 signatures from the Millicent area—

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: How many?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: A thousand signatures from the Millicent area, sent to me personally. That is separate to those that have come in through other means; that is just to me personally.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: Where are the regional members?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Where are the regional members, the Hon. Mr Hanson asks—and a very good question that is. People from IGA Millicent have told me directly that deregulation is likely to close them down. Already they have been unable to provide certainty to their employees. They have not recruited extra staff in readiness for Christmas as they normally would, and their existing staff are extremely worried that they will be losing their jobs once deregulation kicks in, or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say, once deregulation kicks them out.

Foster's Foodland is also opposed to deregulation. An outsider might imagine that Foster's, which does not currently open on Sundays, would be neutral about this bill. 'After all', perhaps someone might think, 'if IGA is forced to close, won't that just be less competition for Foster's?' But, no, Foster's knows that they will have to open longer hours and on Sundays, and competition with Woolworths will mean they will have to cut daytime hours during the week for a number of their existing employees.

Far from stimulating the economy, deregulation will see long-term employees losing their jobs, weekday hours being lost and the likely loss of a longstanding business—at least one of them in the town. Small retailers understand what this Liberal government apparently does not: big supermarket chains have the buying power to undercut the small, independent retailers until the independents can no longer survive. Once the big guys are the only stores in town local people are at the mercy of price rises, because competition is gone. Is this really what the Liberal government wants for the people of Millicent and elsewhere?

Foster's Foodland and IGA Millicent also agree that this deregulation will put many farmers at risk. Independent retailers purchase much of their local produce from small South Australian suppliers and give them fair prices. These suppliers are not big enough to negotiate with the big chains; the big chains are not interested in dealing with local suppliers to one or two stores, and small suppliers cannot negotiate prices on an equal footing.

The Treasurer has unfortunately mocked those who are against deregulation and shown shocking disdain for the people whose livelihoods this policy is putting at risk. He laughingly declared:

I am not a lawyer, but if you have a non-lawyer's view as to what is a 400 square metre shop, the non-lawyers of us might just say, 'That's pretty easy, you just measure the size of the shop and it's either more than 400 square metres or it isn't more than 400 square metres.'

I am sure many of us, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, know of shops that do not occupy an entire building on their own. Maybe no-one has ever seen them except those of us on this side. However, the Treasurer outlines queries about space that is vacant in a building—that is, it is not used in trading: space, for example, that is an entryway, which of course may be space that is shared with other tenants of a building, and a variety of other queries.

Because of this ambiguity, the Treasurer argues that only a court of law can determine what should or should not be included in the calculation of a store area. Further, the Treasurer has indicated that if this bill does not pass, stores that are near the 400 square metre mark will be taken to court so that determination can be made. Indeed, he appears to suggest that pursuing a small retailer to court is the only solution to the ambiguity around trading space.

I may have many criticisms of the current Treasurer, but I do not believe he is a total fool. I am sure he can see that the solution to ambiguity around the calculation is to provide clarity. Clarity, perhaps! If he wants to have trolley areas included and unused space and, who knows, perhaps front footpaths with store advertising on them or trolley areas within the car park—whatever the Treasurer wants—surely all he needs to do is put forward an amendment to the current act, or perhaps add some regulations. After all, surely it cannot have escaped the Treasurer in his 36-odd years in this place that this parliament frequently moves amendments and adopts regulations.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: No!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Seriously, we do.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: It happens here, in the Legislative Council?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In the Legislative Council also. I am confident that the Treasurer and the government, with the resources they have at their disposal within their departments, could find a way to give clarity to small retailers without marching them off to court. Why would the Treasurer put forward such a proposition? Whilst I cannot speak for him, it is not surprising that a number of small retailers interpret such posturing as a thinly veiled threat that they should shut up or look out. Small retailers, such as those in Millicent, do not deliberately set out to break the law. If the law is not clear, then it is incumbent on the government to make the laws clearer.

Another assertion of this Liberal government is that deregulation will provide greater choice, but the people of Millicent have chosen not once but twice to reject deregulation of shopping hours in their town. As has been mentioned, in 2006, the Wattle Range Council conducted a community questionnaire and 66 per cent of respondents voted against the proposal. In April 2017, close to 80 per cent of respondents voted against deregulation.

So the people of Millicent have chosen. They have chosen to support small retailers over big supermarket chains. They have chosen to support fair prices for local producers over big corporations squeezing down farmers' returns. They have chosen to support local jobs over destroying small businesses. These choices will be taken away if this bill succeeds. I therefore ask members here to also choose to support small retailers, to also choose to support fair prices and to also choose to support local jobs by voting against this bill.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:12): I rise to speak in opposition to the bill, and I outline my opposition in the following terms: namely, my concern for various sectors in our community, being retail workers, smaller independent retailers, farmers, local producers and consumers. In regard to retail workers, there is no evidence available to suggest that deregulation would create more jobs or provide economic benefits. Instead, local businesses stand to be pushed out of the market along with local jobs. When you consider that many thousands of workers are employed by these small independent grocers, they are fully aware of the impact it is going to have on their workforce.

I continue to be amazed at the lack of concern by the Liberal government for the welfare of those already employed in the retail sector, which makes up 10 per cent of the South Australian workforce. Public holidays allow retail workers to spend time with their own families. For workers who are also parents, there is the additional stress of finding care for their children outside of regular business hours and this will become even more pertinent in the event of full deregulation.

We already live in a time-poor world and working families are often the ones who feel the strain the most. Time away from families and loved ones is what is at stake here for retail workers. I urge those opposite to consider this point carefully and put themselves in someone else's shoes. The legislation will have a very real impact on retail workers and the time they can spend with their families, time with their precious children, time to relax with their loved ones and time to enjoy leisure activities and recuperate from busy work periods.

People advocating deregulation of hours often accuse South Australia and the Labor Party of being backward and out of touch with what is happening around world trends. But when you look at the countries that enjoy probably some of the best standards in the world, countries in Europe in particular, countries like Norway, Denmark and Sweden, they have very highly regulated shopping hours.

The country we really should be looking at in comparison is the United States, where many states have total deregulation. You will find large stores open in the middle of the night with very few staff, but those staff are paid minimum wages, around $7.50 an hour. A logical conclusion would be that, if deregulation of shopping hours ever does eventuate, the major stores of Coles and Woolworths will then embark upon a campaign of reducing penalty rates so they too can have lower rates for people who they will have working in the wee hours of the night.

Regulation helps small retailers compete with national and international chains. Furthermore, South Australia now enjoys a diverse retail sector. We actually have the largest number of independent retailers in the whole country because we actually protect and care about their welfare. The current legislation allows smaller, independent, South Australian-owned retailers and small business owners to compete with the two major supermarket chains that dominate the Australian market. South Australia has managed to resist the duopolisation. Change to the current balance will have a widespread impact, with shops being forced to stay open longer to compete with big business. They will see their current trading advantage removed.

With regard to farmers, a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting the Pooraka Produce Market with a few of my colleagues. It was clear to me that those local suppliers and producers are supported by independent stores. If these independent stores are forced out of the market, or their market share is greatly decreased, there is an immediate flow-on effect to our local producers and farmers. Farmers may also be forced to accept lower prices for their product, again having a detrimental effect on the local economy.

If Coles and Woolworths can stay open for longer hours, then the market share will naturally shift towards these large supermarkets. The income generated by the increased market share will most likely leave South Australia, rendering no benefit to the local economy. With regard to consumers, I make the point that consumers will not automatically have more money in their pocket just because shops are open longer. I am concerned also that, with the emergence of a duopoly, consumers will be left with less choice and will no longer benefit from healthy competition.

I also had the pleasure, a month or two ago, of visiting Waikerie with a few of my colleagues to talk to a lot of the shopkeepers in the main street of Waikerie. I must say I was quite surprised that people in every single shop that we walked into took one of our brochures and flyers and put it in their window—all bar one, and that was because the person did not own the shop and they were a bit worried about taking something without their owner giving approval.

They understood the problems it would have for them in the Riverland. Even though they are exempt from this and will not be affected by it, they also knew that many people from Adelaide very often come down to the Riverland on a Sunday or over a weekend. A lot of their children come back to the Riverland to spend time with their families. If deregulation of shopping hours eventuated, this would become even more and more difficult, which would not only have a personal effect on their families but would also have an effect on their economies.

Current trading hours provide a balance for business owners and workers. The current system allows for the vast majority of shops, and all small shops, to trade whenever they want. Importantly, the majority of shops have the opportunity to trade on public holidays when big retailers like Coles and Woolworths are closed. Locally owned independent retailers are a vital part of our economy and contribute positively towards employment. Total deregulation will lead to a rapid loss of market share for smaller retailers and, in turn, the profits that would have once stayed in South Australia will be lost to the Eastern States.

The Premier and Treasurer frequently and unfairly paint the existing balance as evidence of South Australia being somehow behind the times. It is certainly not unusual for those opposite to talk this state down. I make this final point: London, Berlin, Paris and many other European cities have regulated shopping hours, particularly on public holidays. Many of you who have travelled overseas would also realise that very often you are sitting, waiting for shops to open. The very concept that we are behind the times is just a furphy. Deregulation is simply not the all-in-one ticket that will drive employment and economic growth that those opposite have long boasted it will be, nor is there conclusive evidence of an improvement in consumer welfare.

In opposing this bill, I appeal to those opposite to put the interests of South Australians ahead of the Coles and Woolies profit margins. I urge you all to consider carefully the interests of the retail workers and local businesses, the independent retailers, local producers, the farmers and the South Australian consumers and vote down this legislation.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (16:19): I, too, rise today to speak about the Retail Trading Bill. The bill relates to the deregulation of shop trading hours to allow all shops to open every day between midnight and 9pm, public holidays included. The aim of the bill, we are told, is to encourage the public to engage in shopping and purchases whenever they wish in a bid to boost the economy, encourage tourism and discourage online shopping.

I agree that we must investigate incentives to further encourage tourism in South Australia. I also agree that online shopping is a key concern for local businesses. I disagree that the deregulation of shop trading hours will adequately address these matters, as I am concerned about the potential impacts it could have on local businesses across the state.

In 2002, a select committee provided a report on shop trading hours in South Australia. After receiving many submissions, both for and against the bill, the committee found that they were unable to reach a conclusion either way based on the data presented for extending shop trading hours. A dissenting statement was provided by the Hon. Mike Elliott MLC, which affirmed that the evidence failed to produce a convincing case for further deregulation of shop trading hours. He also noted that several significant concerns remained unanswered, notably that claims that were made regarding the increased retail turnover and employment following deregulation were not supported by the analysis of ABS data relevant to the impact of deregulation in Victoria.

The only definitive finding in this data was the pressure for change emanating from a minor number of large retail chains. The pressure is not too dissimilar to the kind that many South Australian small businesses are experiencing currently. A similar submission has been made by the Queensland Treasury, which looked into the impact deregulation could have on Independent Grocery Association retailers. Like South Australia, IGA retailers in Queensland operate with extended trading hours, while national chain shops, such as Coles and Woolworths, are subjected to regulated trading hours.

Evidence collected indicates that the deregulation is expected to result in a reduced volume of business for IGA stores. This, in turn, would trigger cuts to labour costs and possibly the decision to terminate store operations. A quantitative analysis of multiplier effects across the various sectors of the economy was then able to show that a decrease in IGA's market presence, as measured by the reduced number of shops or sales, would likely have a significant negative effect on employment and the value added in the retail sector as well as in the economy overall.

The submission concluded that the IGA network has a significant impact on local economies in terms of both employment and value added. Their economic contribution, however, coincides with their ability to compete with national chains, which is critically dependent upon trading hours, that is, by remaining open when national chains are closed.

The deregulation of trading hours will result in national chains being able to trade longer, as well as over public holidays, and would most likely lead to a decrease in IGA and Foodland's market presence. This decrease would then result in reduced employment and lower value added to the economy. All of these findings are not dissimilar to the concerns that we have been hearing in our communities.

Advocate groups are saying that longer hours do not translate to the ability to spend more money, and research conducted by the McKell Institute has found no significant evidence to suggest that deregulation will lead to job creation or economic growth. By speaking to businesses, both within Adelaide and rural communities, these concerns are being reaffirmed.

There is a genuine fear that retail workers will be pressured to work more unsociable hours such as public holidays, early mornings, evenings and on weekends, with no protections in place. There are also concerns that if independent retailers are pushed out of the marketplace, there will be little to support South Australian brands and produce, making life harder for grower and supplier businesses in our state.

We know that the big chains often stock the majority of their fruit, vegetables and other produce from interstate, and it is already evident that start-up suppliers face difficulties to begin in such a competitive arena. We have 89 IGAs in South Australia. If many of these stores were to be forced out of the marketplace, we not only hurt the employment industry and the value added to the retail sector but also the economy overall. In closing, there is no convincing evidence to suggest that this bill will effectively boost the economy, encourage tourism, create jobs or promote job security. That is why I will not support this bill.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:25): I rise to indicate my opposition to this bill. Independent retailers are part of the very fabric of this state. They are located throughout our suburbs and in almost every regional town. This is a very different set-up from most other states. The McKell Institute report into trading hours suggests that independent retailers in South Australia currently hold approximately 32 per cent of the market share, which is a very significant proportion. In comparison, nationally, the market share of independent retailers in 2015 was somewhere around 8.1 per cent. That shows how important independent retailers are to South Australia.

This debate is not just about the hours one can shop; it is a debate about sales and wealth in the South Australian community. It is also about local economies, and the groups and communities that grow around independent retailers. On many occasions, I have heard firsthand about the support that independent retailers have given to local producers, and about the local jobs that have been created. In my former guise as minister for manufacturing, I recall visiting a local prepared meat manufacturer which produced low-and-slow cooked American-style products such as brisket and pork ribs. What that company told me really stuck with me. They told me about the remarkable support they had received from independent retailers.

The independent retailers had helped this company with their product development, packaging, marketing advice and stall placement. In effect, the independent retailers helped them become a success. That contrasted with what the company told me about Coles and Woolworths. The 'big two' were not at all interested in stocking their product and did not want to go anywhere near what was effectively a start-up food manufacturer. The 'big two' were certainly not going to help them with the things and in the ways the independent retailers did.

The point is: if we do things that increase the market share of the big retailers at the expense of independent retailers, there will be an impact on local jobs and local manufacturing, because independent retailers simply will not be in the same position to help. Another example is the support provided by the Foster's Foodland in Millicent, which the Hon. Clare Scriven has spoken about. I met Kate, a local food manufacturer who makes Pops Blackjack Worcestershire sauce. Kate wanted to honour her late father by sharing their family sauce with the rest of Australia. To do so, she sought and received support from Foster's Foodland.

Third-generation Foster's Foodland helped Kate to navigate the sometimes overwhelming world of food manufacturing, including what is required, the regulations, how to market, logo creation and product placement—basically everything to ensure Kate had a chance at success. That was well over a year ago, and this sauce is now going great guns, all thanks to the help provided by the Millicent Foodland to give Kate a chance.

This is at risk if we fail to support our independent retailers, if shop trading hours are deregulated as this bill suggests, and if the big retailers get a much larger slice of the market. This is not to mention the family-friendly hours that the current regime can afford, or the fact that many international tourism precincts do not have this so-called nirvana of deregulated shop trading hours. With those words, I once again indicate my opposition to this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:29): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Retail Trading Bill. This bill, of course, was a centrepiece of the Marshall campaign and was promised to come before this council or this parliament in the first 100 days of the Marshall government. Of course, we now know that that bill did not arrive before this council in those first 100 days. A pesky little thing beat the 100-day deadline, a pesky little thing called a weekend that we could not potentially sit through to ensure that the bill met the 100-day promise.

It seems that weekends only apply to politicians in this particular debate. Indeed, from conversations I have had with a retail worker recently, this government fails to understand that getting called into work on a Sunday feels like the dirtiest day of all—the day that you are dragged away from your family, from your friends and from your leisure time. On this issue, we have previously debated a compromise position in my time in this parliament. It was a debate in my time in this parliament that garnered more correspondence and more interest than any other issue, including voluntary euthanasia.

I believe that the current system, where we have some deregulation across the regions and the CBD, has struck a balance. We are only talking about the suburbs now, and we do not need to hand out a free pass to the big end of town to squeeze out the independents and the small businesses. More deregulation will be bad for families, it will be bad for communities, and eventually it will be bad for small businesses. I do not understand why this Marshall government feels that we need to shop until they drop. I am thinking of those workers when we cast our vote.

It might sound appealing to have convenience, but it will not be so appealing when those workers never see their kids play sport on the weekend and local sporting competitions go under. It will not be so appealing when they struggle to compete with the big operators and end up being squeezed out of business completely. In this era of disruption, it is already possible to order most items delivered to your door 24/7 in these suburbs anyway. The debate has actually moved on.

The Greens have a longstanding commitment to support small retail operators and back diversity in the market by opposing this full deregulation policy of the South Australian Liberals. In December, we were proud to sign a pledge in this election and go into bat for the smaller South Australian retailers, and stand against these measures that the Marshall government has brought to this place, which we believe will only protect the duopolies, the 'Colesworths' of this debate.

Speaking of duopolies, it is no surprise that, in this place, we see a crossbench standing against this. This is a council where the government has not held the outright numbers for some decades. It is no surprise that South Australia, therefore, has one of the strongest independent retail sectors in this country. That means choice and the voters chose choice. They chose not to give the Marshall government their mandate uncontested in this place. Steven Marshall may have been the man, but he does not have a mandate in this council when it comes to shop trading hours.

We do not want to see the Starbucks effect, where the Starbucks Corporation has a practice of squeezing out the little coffee shops because they can, because they can afford to run them out of business by underpricing them. That is their business model and we have seen that across the retail sector. Starbucks did not do so well in South Australia because we like good coffee, we like small independent retailers and we like choice.

I am going to call this out for what it is: this is a political game. This bill was promised to come to us in that first 100 days. Of course, they missed the deadline because of a pesky little weekend and the fact that they did not want to work overtime and work through that weekend. This is a political game that is very much like Ralph wolf and Sam sheepdog in the old cartoons. The Marshall government believes that the Labor government is weakened in its position by its links to the SDA. I remind both sides that there is a new player in town in terms of the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union, but also South Australians will see through this political game.

Every public holiday, when you desperately hope to find a shopper who wanted to buy a bar of chocolate at 9 o'clock and could not wait until 11 o'clock that day, they will start to see through the sham and the spin of this government, because we know people who work in the retail sector. They are real people with real families, who live in real communities, and buying that bar of chocolate at 9am is much more important than the investment that we make by standing against this full deregulation.

They will also see through the sham of a government that brought this bill to this place with threats against the small retailers that in fact 'if the parliament rejects this bill there will be no alternative to enforcing compliance with the current act'. A few shops will have to move a few fridges and perhaps a front counter or deli desk or two, but meanwhile SafeWork SA, while cracking down on these small retailers, will continue to be unable to address deaths in workplaces, as we have seen time and time again under their watch. 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. With those few words, I do not commend this bill; I indicate that we oppose this bill at the second reading.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:36): I rise today on behalf of SA-Best to speak in strong opposition to the government's Retail Trading Bill 2018. Honourable members may have noted that my colleague the Hon. Connie Bonaros and I have been mocked, pilloried and satirised over this issue far more than any other parliamentary colleagues also opposed to this bill. They would have the public believe that we are alone in blocking the government's legislation agenda, particularly shop trading hours and the looming rate capping.

On the front steps of this esteemed house of democracy, alongside the Labor opposition leader Peter Malinauskas, Greens MLCs the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. Tammy Franks, and Advance SA's the Hon. John Darley, SA-Best signed a pledge to vote down this bill in the upper house and to my knowledge nothing has changed.

SA-Best went to the state election with a clear and transparent policy opposing any changes to the current shop trading laws. The misinformed said SA-Best had no policies. Well, we released 32 and have more to come. Our policies convinced more than 200,000 people, or about one in five South Australians, to vote for SA-Best to represent them in parliament. Politicians do have a responsibility to give serious consideration to the legislation of the elected government. We do not intend to be obstructionist. We will support Liberal government legislation where we believe it is in the best interests of South Australians, and we have done that, but not this bill.

Since the election, we have continued to consult widely with a wide range of organisations and stakeholders on both sides, including the Australian Retailers Association, the South Australian Independent Retailers, the Shopping Centre Council of Australia, the Motor Trade Association, Business SA, primary producers and growers, and small and medium businesses in Adelaide and the South-East of the state. Strangely, we have not heard from, or been asked to meet with, either Coles or Woolworths. Aldi have no interest in the politics of shopping.

Considering all the histrionics from a handful of media commentators and sniping from the usual suspects cloaked in Liberal blue, the feedback we have received from the public has surprisingly been non-existent. The same goes for rate capping. Instead, my inbox has been inundated with issues the public find far more important, like marine parks, fracking, prostitution and euthanasia.

On shopping hours, the world has not fallen in on the state since we were elected, and we have yet to see any compelling evidence to be convinced to change our position. The government has even admitted that it has not done any sort of economic modelling on this. You need to ask why. As part of our consultation process, SA-Best ventured to Millicent, where we held a community forum on this topic and the impact it would have on the town.

Millicent holds a unique place in this debate as it is one of only three regional communities in SA where shopping hours are fully regulated. The largest supermarkets and stores in the town, as has been pointed out by our friends on the Labor side, are unable to open past 6pm on Saturdays, and the town's only Woolworths store, a giant one, is closed on Sundays, something the local community strongly supports. In a local council-run poll last year about 67 per cent of Millicent's eligible ratepayers voted against deregulation.

I was overwhelmed with the response I received that night in Millicent. Despite there being two other functions on that same night, nearly 100 people attended the forum, and the collective view of the group was emphatic: do not change the rules and do not interfere in our town. They did not have kind words for their local Liberal member Nick McBride after they challenged him to cross the floor and oppose the bill. Millicent locals, like people living in other regional communities, are acutely aware of the severe impact any changes to shop trading hours will have in their region, including the potential forced disclosure of small family-run businesses that in turn provide all manner of support to the community.

As part of our consultation we have also met with the government and the opposition and while those meetings have always been cordial and productive we have agreed to disagree on this issue with the Treasurer. Even before he introduced the legislation in parliament the Treasurer knew that he was confronting a tsunami of opposition. The one thing they cannot say about SA-Best is that we have not consulted extensively and looked closely at both sides of the argument. Deregulation will not create jobs; if anything it will only add to the casualisation of the workforce.

In recent weeks there was a significant ruling from the Fair Work Commission that will have a big bearing on the retail sector. Saturday pay for casuals in the retail industry was increased to 150 per cent from 135 per cent. The ruling could discourage using casuals on weekends and offset the cuts to their Sunday penalty rates, which will be phased in by July next year—another cost to bear whether you are big or small or not covered by enterprise agreements.

Another significant ruling that came into force on 1 October was that casual workers now have the right to ask for a permanent position if they have worked an average of 38 hours for the past 12 months. It would give them rights like paid sick leave and annual leave as well as guaranteeing them set hours. This is likely to cause industrial mayhem. Russell Zimmerman of the Australian Retailers Association bleated:

Retailers are going to look very closely at their casual staff and there's just not going to be as much work as there would have been.

So where will all these jobs that the Treasurer and Premier promised come from? The 24/7 trading that the Treasurer wants to hand to Coles, Woolworths, Aldi, Costco and the new arrival of Kaufland, will not result in people spending more; it will simply carve up the existing retail pie and targets the fiercely independent IGA stores which have managed to build a considerable share of that pie because of customer and brand loyalty. Every dollar spent in a Romeo's or Drake's Foodland, for example, remains in the state.

Aldi's profits go back to the private family-owned company in Germany. Woolworths and Coles are only interested in their shareholders. Woolies, the 'fresh food people', source much of their fresh food from their interstate suppliers. The meat you buy is sourced and prepacked from interstate suppliers, not locals, and you do not know how fresh it really is. The staff behind the counter might dress and look like butchers but chances are they are not, and you will not ever hear or see a bandsaw slicing lamb cutlets, like we used to hear. I do not even think they would give you a free slice of fritz if you asked.

Mitcham's award-winning butcher, Trevor Hill, is 50 steps from a Woolies store. He tells me that he put on more apprentices in his four stores in one year than Woolies did in the entire state, a figure that I believe was zero. They have no need to employ apprentices, unlike Trevor, because they do not need them. They operate a centralised, pre-packed processing facility in Victoria, which now supplies stores in South Australia. A few stores will retain qualified butchers to offer what they say is 'great service and advice'. Coles is likely to take a similar path.

Meanwhile, the South Australian Produce Market at Pooraka is a cooperative set up by some of the largest producers of fruit and vegetables in the state. It is a lively and vibrant hive of activity from around 4am to 8am, as I discovered on a visit there in March. It supplies a range of local businesses, including IGAs and Foodlands, but the majors do not support it. One of our largest potato growers sells 70 per cent of his crop to local independent retailers and fears he, too, will lose out against the interstate produce favoured by the majors.

Consumers will also lose choice. The big retailers will push their own house brands, many of which are really knock-offs, while the well-known brands shrink or disappear altogether from shelves. That has a significant knock-on effect on those manufacturers, placing them, as well as the jobs of the people they employ, at risk. We saw the damage done to dairy farmers when Coles and Woolies started selling milk at a loss for $1 a litre. They do not care. Their sole focus is getting results for their shareholders.

Coles' business ethics have come in for extra attention in recent days by the federal agriculture minister, David Littleproud. The minister launched a scathing attack on the supermarket monolith over its handling of the 10¢ milk levy for drought relief, calling its approach 'slippery' and questioning if the extra money was even finding its way to affected farmers. The broadside follows both Woolworths and Coles, last month, responding to calls by the dairy industry to introduce a 10¢ levy on milk to be directed towards these drought-affected farmers.

Woolies introduced the levy across the entire range of its own brand milk. Coles only did so for its three-litre own brand milk. Mr Littleproud also dumped on Aldi, saying that the German-owned supermarket giant had not applied any levy and had done 'bugger all' to help Australian farmers. Manufacturers who supply the majors have told me that they are constantly being squeezed to provide goods at lower prices or face the prospect of being banished or penalised.

Dick Smith finally ran up the white flag and closed down his Dick Smith Foods business, the profits of which went to charities, blaming the demise of his proud business on the inroads by Aldi. The knock-on effect here was that many small manufacturers used by Dick to make his eponymous products, including jams, honey and spreads at Spring Gully in Adelaide, could have lost significant business. After speaking to Mr Smith, I can report that he has generously given Spring Gully the rights to continue his spreads, including OzEmite, for nothing, but he issued the ominous warning that Aldi will continue to eat away and eventually destroy both Coles and Woolworths.

Aldi's model is hurting small businesses. You can imagine my shock when I saw a survey showing that Aldi is now the most trusted supermarket brand in Australia, and it is not even Australian. I am uncertain if many Australians realise that a large chunk of Aldi's products are imported, so it is a sad indictment when consumers put price ahead of loyalty to the homegrown. Once the smaller operators go out of business and competition diminishes, costs will inevitably have to rise.

Employees also seem to have been forgotten in this argument that is primarily about the convenience of consumers. The work-life balance of retail workers—nearly 90,000 of them in this state—would be significantly disrupted. Does anyone care that mums and dads would not be able to spend weekends and public holidays with their kids, taking them on outings, to their own sport engagements or to the footy, because they will be forced to work? What would you say if your boss demanded that you had to work on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays and instead have a couple of weekdays off? That is a question not being asked in the push polls. You can only guess what the responses would be.

Colin Shearing, CEO of the South Australian Independent Retailers Association, who is in the chamber with us today, fears the only impact the laws would have, if passed, would be on small business, employment and families. Colin's concerns are being amplified loud and clear through a powerful campaign by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (the SDA), where its members have written to the state's politicians, voicing their personal views. Here are just some of the responses we have received. Michael from Mile End:

I don’t want to have to work public holidays whilst everyone else is at home. If you are so keen on deregulation, please feel free to work on Christmas for me.

Cynthia from Tea Tree Gully:

…childcare only operates Mon-Fri 6.30am to 6.30pm. Can the workplace provide creche on site for hours outside this?

Filomena from Kensington Park:

I am a single mother and I work a lot to support my small family. I have a very unfair roster but I need to stay at home during the night and the public holidays to look after my son.

Michelle from Craigmore:

I would want to spend the public holiday with my family and friends instead of working—we all get more than enough time to shop every other day of the year.

Mel from Morphett Vale:

It's not going to change anything. People still won't have the disposable income to shop.

Nadine from Torrensville:

As a retail worker we also have families and partners and would like to see them.

And this from Greg, an IGA supermarket owner:

Liberal Premier Steven Marshall says deregulated shop trading is working in Victoria and NSW.

Is it?

In Victoria and NSW, 75% of all supermarkets are Coles, Woolies or Aldi.

Here in SA, IGA and Foodlands are everywhere and proudly stock SA brands.

Already...Coles and Woolies branches got rid of SA butchers and are bringing in packed meat from Victoria.

At the moment Steven Marshall is standing up for interstate corporates.

Tell him to stop deregulation, and stand up for South Australia.

I think everyone will agree that those messages paint a very sobering picture.

Shopping centre owners are likely to place pressure on shop owners in their centres to stay open. Some might even incur losses because they cannot afford to pay the triple penalty rates. The government will argue there are laws to stop this, yet the cashed-up landlords have ways and means to get around it.

The Motor Trade Association does not want deregulation either. It says it will not be able to get staff to work on Sundays. Besides, buyers would not be able to drive away with a new or used car on Sundays anyway because transactions involving banks or government authorities like the motor registry are shut. There are genuine fears the price of vehicles will then rise to compensate for the additional costs.

The Marshall government needs to listen to the people it will impact the most. Its plans will devastate many small and medium-sized businesses. I always believed the Liberals supported small business, not white-anting it, as it promises to do with this proposed legislation.

SA-Best believes this bill is a payback to the big end of town for backing the Liberals in the last election. Staring at the defeat of his big-ticket election promise, it was disappointing to see the Treasurer recently misrepresent 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, but because significant roadworks have recommenced outside his car park, and he is desperate to save his business.

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 and all the new work has further renewed stress and anxiety for this hardworking businessman. The Treasurer is vowing retribution if the bill is killed off, saying he will dispatch his space police to inspect and issue noncompliance notices on stores that are not conforming with existing trade regulations. I quote the Treasurer:

We are hopeful that we might be able to demonstrate to people that the current laws are such a mess that we need to start again. If they choose to stick with the current mess, the sad reality will be that the current law has to be enforced as best we can.

So the Treasurer is basically saying, 'If we do not get what we want, we are going after you.' He should be prepared to negotiate, to compromise, to find some common ground, not throw his weight around and intimidate. I have gone on record suggesting the shop trading laws, together with the government's proposed rate capping legislation, should be among the first issues tackled by its new productivity commission. After all, the government has admitted it has not done any economic modelling on it.

Having its own umpire investigate and report should be a logical step, which perhaps could open the doors for a rethink. It should not simply rely on flimsy and populist push polling and cajoling as we have seen from the Liberals' staunchest allies, the Property Council and Business SA, to justify its hollow stance.

Finally, I would like to issue a challenge to any advocate for deregulation to visit a small business operator like Hutt Street IGA owner, Theo Vlassis, and tell him to his face that they do not care if he goes broke, loses his livelihood and his home, because they want to buy bread, milk or a packet of cigarettes at any time of the day of their choosing. What must not ever be forgotten in this debate is that small business is by far the biggest employer in this state.

I do not want the destruction of small businesses, job losses, the fact that good, decent, hardworking people will lose their livelihoods and family homes, on my conscience. The Treasurer reckons it helps having ice in your veins. I think he, the Premier and the Liberal Party, which claims it stands for business, need to chill out on this one. We strongly oppose the bill.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:57): This bill sees some of the biggest changes to our shop trading hours since the introduction of the Shop Trading Hours Bill in 1977. Shop trading hours were first regulated in 1900 and were designed to protect shop assistants who were forced to work unreasonably long hours. This was especially so for farmers who were forced to travel great distances to trade. The original legislation also aimed to provide for consumer demand. In 1911, changes were made to the Early Closing Act to introduce a Saturday closing district, which outlined that all shops within the district were to close at 6pm from Monday to Thursday, 9pm on Fridays, and 1pm on Saturdays.

Further changes were made to the act in 1923 and 1924 to stipulate different opening times for tobacconists and butchers respectively. These rules remained relatively unchanged until 1940, when the hours were reduced slightly, from 6pm to 5.30pm from Monday to Thursday, and from 1pm to 12.30pm on Saturdays for those shops in the designated Saturday closing district. Reduced resources and manpower during the Second World War saw late-night trading on Fridays suspended.

With the growth of shopping centres in suburban areas in the 1950s, a growing number of retailers and consumers from the inner city were calling for a uniformity of shopping hours. Most of the regulation was confined to shops within the inner city, resulting in shops outside of this area being largely unregulated. This call for uniformity continued until 1970 when the government held a referendum, which asked all metropolitan voters the question: are you in favour of shops in the metropolitan planning area and the municipality of Gawler being permitted to remain open for trading until 9pm on Fridays? As a result of the referendum, the government legislated to extend the metropolitan shopping district.

In 1977, the government established a royal commission to inquire into the law relating to shop trading hours and ancillary matters. The commission recommended that shopping hours be changed to allow for one night of late-night trading per district, that is, one night for the inner city and another night for metropolitan areas. The commission did not believe it necessary to expand Saturday trading beyond 12.30pm but did make several comments in relation to exempted goods in shops. This resulted in the Shop Trading Hours Act 1977. There have been a few changes since then, including the extension of trading hours from a half day to a full day on Saturday as well as Sunday trading from 11am to 5pm.

Having read the report of the 1977 royal commission, it is clear that we are still arguing about the same things over 40 years later. The commission's report outlined the requirements to strike the balance between need and convenience. The retail industry should service the community, but they made a distinction between consumers who wanted the convenience that longer trading hours would offer, as opposed to consumers who had an actual need for trading hours to be longer.

There is no doubt that consumers will want what is more convenient for them. However, I am yet to see an actual need for longer shopping hours. I requested statistics on the number of transactions and the amount of transactions from 5pm to 9pm from a large supermarket operator earlier this year. It showed that after a peak at about 6.30pm, there were only minimal transactions made at night, with the exception of the traditional evening that is subject to late-night trading. To me, this demonstrates that there is not a big demand for extended trading hours, if existing evening hours do not have the same number of shoppers as during the day.

Similarly, I have witnessed shopping centres at night where big retailers such as Big W and Kmart stay open until 9pm on weekdays. The centres are empty and, with the exception of skeleton staff who seem to be very bored, the shops are also empty. Small retailers are essentially deregulated now; however, we see very few operating 24/7 because this is not what the market wants. There is little or no demand for it and so owners choose not to open and instead spend time with their family and friends. If shopping hours are deregulated, big companies are likely to open, which will force small businesses to open too in the name of competition. This is not healthy for our community.

In 1977, small traders argued that extending trading hours would affect their business, because these people would go to the city or large suburban shopping centres. At the time, there was no evidence of this being true, but given the experience of time, we have seen that this is true. Now we are seeing retailers giving similar predictions. Given the experience, it could be said that it is likely their predictions will come true this time, too.

We have seen the growth and growth of suburban shopping centres, practically at the cost of our main streets. Suburban shopping centres offer convenient parking, shopping sheltered from the elements and major retailers all wrapped up in an attractive package. In comparison, Jetty Road, Glenelg, is practically a ghost town on Thursday nights, with an abundance of empty retail spaces. I believe vibrant main streets add to the community, and it has been disheartening to see their decline over the years. Tourists do not often visit a city to visit a shopping centre. After all, they are practically all the same. Instead, tourists are drawn to main streets, and it does not leave a good impression of our city if our fledgling main streets are left to linger and die.

The experience of the meat industry is particularly telling. In 1977, butchers were responsible for 73 per cent of the market. Trading hours were extended for retailers with the exception of butchers, who had their trading hours limited. The reasoning behind this was that at the time there was only a limited number of butchers working in the trade, and it was thought having them trade for longer would put undue pressure on them. However, the result of this move was that people moved towards buying meat from supermarkets due to the convenience, and the number of butchers has declined dramatically.

Now the majority of meat sales are done through supermarkets. Again, we see small retailers such as florists, newsagents and bakers making a similar argument against deregulating shop trading hours. I cannot see how they and their industries will not experience what the butchers did 40 years ago.

SAPOL's submission to the royal commission was interesting in that they asserted that, should shopping hours be extended, they would need more resources. They asserted that there would be more traffic on the roads due to extended trading hours, and they would therefore need more resources to manage this. They also submitted that crime would increase, as there would be more exposure and more opportunities to shoplift. General crowd control would need more resources to manage, and they also submitted that sexual assaults on women may increase due to extended shopping hours.

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. We are not like our Eastern States cousins, who have public transport operating regular and relatively frequent services throughout the night. We simply do not have the population to support this. How will the safety of workers going home at odd hours be ensured if we move to a 24/7 economy?

Consumers seemingly want longer shopping hours; however, shopkeepers do not. The main difference from an historical perspective is that there are now fewer owner-operator shopkeepers and that the market, particularly shops that sell foodstuffs, are dominated by large corporations with many employees. Historically, the cry from shopkeepers was heard loudly during debate on this issue. Their arguments often outstrip those of the consumer, as there are many more shopkeepers who are concerned about the pressure that increased trading hours would have on their work-life balance.

These days, however, we see this as an argument that is being made by employees of large companies, as well as owner-operators of small businesses. There is concern about the impact deregulated trading hours will have on family pressures and people's social lives at a time when people are being encouraged to take better care of themselves from an holistic perspective. It seems a backward step to introduce legislation that would see people be pushed, or push themselves, to the brink.

The current act provides exemptions for shops with a floor area of under 200 square metres, or 400 square metres if they are selling foodstuffs. However, I understand there is ambiguity over what constitutes the floor area. I understand there are retailers who will section off parts of their store on certain days that they can trade, and I have heard arguments about measurements from the inside of fridges. There needs to be clarity around this issue.

It is unhelpful for the government to just say that, unless they get their way with the passing of this bill, they will then prosecute people for not following the rules. If the rules are unclear, then the government should be aiming to provide clarity and make it clearer, rather than just punishing people.

Interestingly, the royal commission in 1977 recommended that retail hours should be determined by an independent body, such as the new Industrial Commission, or a tribunal, rather than parliament where it could be politicised. This suggestion had the overwhelming support of traders, unions and the public, and I would be interested in hearing whether the government is giving consideration to this proposal. Given the above, I cannot support this bill and urge the government to rethink its plans on this issue going forward.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.

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