HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-08-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Retail Trading Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 June 2021.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (15:20): I rise to speak on this bill and the bill that follows, the associated referendum bill. This feels a little bit like deja vu all over again. It feels a bit like we have had this debate, the government has run out of things to say, so now we are doing it all over again, again, except that this time it is different. There is one difference. It is not like we are in Pittsburgh with Punxsutawney Phil and it is Groundhog Day, there is a bit of a difference this time.

This time pretty much everyone has abandoned the Treasurer's ideological push—everyone has abandoned him. The latest is Business SA. The Treasurer now finds himself on the wrong side of Business SA in a reform to reform business. It is just remarkable; you could not write this. The state of South Australia has one of the highest rates of independent supermarkets and stores. These stores tend to buy more local products to put on their shelves that create more local jobs.

I remember in my time as manufacturing minister I would have lost count of the number of food manufacturers who talked about getting their start in an IGA or a Foodland. It is not just that the IGA or Foodland would stock their product when the major chains would not, but the IGA and Foodland would actually give that small, new and emerging food manufacturer and producer help with marketing and help with food regulation. The independent retailers have played a remarkable role in promoting small business in South Australia, one that, quite frankly, the national chains do not—and this Treasurer does not care.

I remember a visit a couple of years ago to Millicent, which still has the same shopping hours as Adelaide, with Brian Foster at Foster's Foodland and Bill Schuller at the Millicent IGA both talking about how opposed they and the town of Millicent, as reflected in survey after survey, are to the Treasurer's ideological push for shop trading hours. Even small things like Pops Blackjack's Worcestershire sauce, the woman who started making that in honour of her late grandfather could not have got a start, as she said, without having those independent retailers.

We saw what happened in Naracoorte, near Millicent, when shopping hours were reformed and Naracoorte did not have the protection that Millicent still retains: it drove small independent retailers out of business, and that is what will happen if the Treasurer gets his way with this ideological push. We have seen so many issues that desperately require attention from this government and then the political genius that is the Hon. Rob Lucas thinks shop trading hours is the most important one for us to be spending precious parliamentary time dealing with.

The Treasurer thinks that an ideological push on shop trading hours, that is now out of step with Business SA, is more important than dealing with things like the abject failures in the health system with the worst ramping in the state. That is the political genius that is Rob Lucas. We will miss him when he is not around after this election. At a time when the government should be making sure that anyone who needs it can be seen in an emergency department this government is focusing its attention on shop trading hours.

At a time when this government is pushing a $700 million basketball stadium on this state, so that maybe the Treasurer can watch his beloved Philadelphia 76ers tour Australia at some future date, the most important thing that this chamber is dealing with, that the Treasurer wants, is shop trading hours. That is the political genius that is the Hon. Rob Lucas. We will miss him after the election.

Who could forget the debate about the absolute debacle that was the Treasurer presiding over land tax reform? To alienate so many in your own parliamentary party and so many in your own constituency is a remarkable feat that only the Treasurer could pull off. That is the political genius of the Hon. Rob Lucas. We will miss him.

The real genius of the Hon. Rob Lucas's ideological push, which is now opposed by Business SA, is that he does not have to worry about how much his stubborn ideology will hurt local businesses, independent South Australian-owned retailers or South Australian families, because he does not have a plan for the future of this state, he has a plan for retirement. He has a plan to spend his twilight years tending to his ponies in the pastures and drinking Muskets at Dawn at the Adelaide Club while practising for three-dimensional chess championships. This is the political genius that is the Hon. Rob Lucas. We will miss him.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.E. Hanson): Thank you, the Hon. Mr Maher. Maybe we will miss the Hon. Rob Lucas. In the meantime, we will hear from the Hon. Ms Bourke.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (15:25): I have put on the record countless times my position on this matter, so I am sure it is not going to come as any surprise, but I do want to share a story about someone who thought they were going to be very clever. He came in to Parliament House to share his story with me about why shop trading hours should be deregulated and why the government was on the right path to victory with this great reform.

His name is Bruce. Bruce is well and truly a Liberal voter. He came in to tell me his story about his frustration with going to the local supermarket to buy a barbecue chicken. He got there at 5.05 on a Saturday night. He was angry. He just wanted his barbecue chicken and he could not go into the supermarket to buy it. Good point. Where do you think he went after that? He told me his frustrations, 'I couldn't go into the supermarket. I couldn't go into this big multinational supermarket and get my barbecue chicken, so I had to go up the road to the family-run barbecue chicken shop and buy my chicken.'

I asked him, 'Was it a good chicken?' He said, 'It was actually a really good chicken, one of the best chickens I have had in a really long time.' I said, 'Well, would you have usually gone to that family chicken shop up the road?' He said, 'No, I have never actually been there before. I usually just grab it when I'm in the supermarket and give that money to that multinational company that doesn't keep their money or their jobs here in South Australia. I think they send their money to this big corporate body somewhere else that isn't in South Australia.'

I said to him, 'Do you still think that deregulating shop trading hours is a good idea?' He said, 'I had never really thought it about from that perspective. I never really thought about why you were jumping up and down so much about the need to keep shop trading hours the way that they are at the moment.' He would never have gone to that little family chicken shop up the road if the Hon. Rob Lucas and those opposite got their way.

Do you know what would happen if those opposite get their way? That is why Business SA has come out so strongly against this. If those opposite get their way, the family chicken shop will not be there any longer, nor will the butcher, nor will the florist and nor will any other little family business that surrounds that supermarket. Why? Because when you have a supermarket, a multinational supermarket that can put prices up and down at the flick of a switch, they will push out every small business that surrounds them.

Do you know that one of the biggest products that a supermarket loses money on is a barbecue chicken? Where do they put that barbecue chook? They put it at the back of the supermarket, because when you go into the supermarket you buy everything else along the way back to the checkout, and they will do that for every other product. You have a pizza bar? They will sell pizzas after 5pm on a Saturday night. People will not be going up the road to buy pizza, they will just get it when they are at the supermarket.

You will push out every small business that surrounds one of these large companies on a Saturday night because of your regulations that you want to change. Shutting and giving time to the little guy is important. You are taking away this small handful of time that is meant to be there for the independent, and there is a reason we have 30 per cent more independents in South Australia—it is of no coincidence. It is because we have given them the regulations that support those very small businesses, so they can stay open while the big guys are shut.

Those opposite keep saying, 'All these businesses have to shut, it's horrible, there's no flexibility in South Australia'. Eighty per cent of businesses in South Australia can open 24/7 if they choose—80 per cent of small businesses that keep their jobs, keep their profits here in South Australia, can open 24/7. The only ones that cannot are the big guys, and they cannot open because we are giving that market space to the little guy, and that is why we keep prices down and we have more choices for our consumers.

The very people you think you are trying to help you will hurt, because prices will go up under your plan, because there will be no competition. You will drive out competition and that is why Business SA has run in the opposite direction from you. That is why Barossa Fine Foods has run the opposite direction. That is why every small business that has been given an opportunity under legislation that is supported by this side and by the crossbenchers is not supporting you. That is why FoodWorks on O'Connell Street in North Adelaide has a sign out the front, 'Support local businesses, vote Labor'. That must hurt, and it must hurt a lot.

The people that you have gone in to say you will be the friends of are running in the opposite direction, and so they should. You say that we are backwards: well, go to London! Guess what they do on Oxford Street on a Sunday. You can only trade for six consecutive hours on a Sunday on Oxford Street. How backwards are we? It is just extraordinary.

Just a few other little facts—a timeline. There is a timeline here. You have come in with an election promise. Small businesses, industry bodies, the unions, have all come out and are on the same page. They have said that you are on the wrong side of the argument. They said, 'This is not a good idea, you shouldn't push ahead with this'. The crossbenchers and Labor come together and sign a pledge to also say that you are also on the wrong side of the argument. You lose the vote in parliament. Life moves on, businesses are happy with some certainty for small businesses.

A worldwide health pandemic comes along. Surely the Liberal government is not going to play politics with a health pandemic. It only took a matter of hours for the Hon. Rob Lucas and the Premier to come out and announce that they would deregulate shopping hours. They use a health pandemic to get their political will out the door. They realise that they may have stepped over the line and start to say, 'Oh, well, this is because of social distancing, we need a little bit of social distancing.' But it only seemed to be that they needed social distancing on Saturday mornings, Saturday nights or Sunday mornings. It did not seem to need social distancing any other time of the week, because the Treasurer would know that you can trade from midnight until 9pm.

I am not that great with maths, but 21 hours is a fair amount of time to be able to social distance during the week. Any store in South Australia can open from midnight until 9pm. That is a reasonable amount of time to head to the supermarket, surely. Surely you would not need to deregulate trading hours if you can already trade for 21 hours in a day. But there seemed to be a problem, because there needed to be social distancing on a Sunday morning in particular.

There was a quick email chain that we discovered through an FOI—I am sure the Treasurer is very well aware of the one I am about to bring up. There never seem to be any emails from the health officials, just between two particular political advisers about what we need to extend trading hours. This particular adviser from the Department of Treasury and Finance states:

The current easing of hours is due to expire on 18 May. Both coles and woollies have indicated they are moving back to more normal hours during the week—

again, you could trade between midnight and 9pm—

and that they are seeing early trends of shopping moving back towards weekends. With increased numbers of shoppers doing their shop on the weekend they are concerned with social distancing and are seeking to trade extended hours, particularly on Sunday [morning]…

Here we were in a pandemic, telling people not to be going out to the community, not to be going to the shops, but the only thing we were thinking about was extending trading hours on a Sunday morning. That email chain continues on for quite some months between these two same political advisers into June. They started in May. There does not seem to be any email or any correspondence in March. When did the government announce that they would deregulate trading hours so that social distancing could happen? In March, but there was no health advice given by anyone in a formal capacity that trading hours should be deregulated for health reasons.

We kept pushing and pushing and pushing until we got an answer. That answer came from Dr Chris McGowan on 2 May 2021. He confirmed that there were 'no files that existed in our scope or our application in regard to the need to deregulate trading hours as part of the pandemic'—none. You have done nothing but use politics during a pandemic to get your way, to follow through with your legacy—one that will never, ever happen. You have failed and you will not succeed.

The other day I had guests in this parliament. They asked me, 'What has been the most significant thing you have achieved whilst being here?' Without hesitation, I said it was about voting against your reforms, because we know that local businesses and small businesses that keep their money here in South Australia are the backbone of our economy. They are the very people you have abandoned.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.E. Hanson): Thank you, the Hon. Ms Bourke. As much as I would love to have a bill on shop trading hours, I just remind members to direct their comments through the Chair.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:37): I rise as one of two speakers today from the Greens to speak to the Retail Trading Bill 2021, also with a view to the fact that we have a Referendum (Retail Trading) Bill on our Notice Paper as well. I think it is no surprise that, 200 days before an election, we are here again in this council debating shop trading hours and Rob Lucas the Treasurer's attempt to deregulate shop trading hours.

The then Liberal opposition promised that a Marshall Liberal government would, in the first 100 days, bring forward to this council a bill to deregulate shop trading hours. Of course, that was one of the promises that they broke pretty early, because they did not get a bill into this council in the first 100 days of this parliament. In fact, when asked why we had no piece of legislation to debate, it was said that parliamentary counsel had not been able to draft the bill because it was far more onerous than the Treasurer had imagined it might be.

Of course, after that failed promise of a bill in the first 100 days, when we finally did receive a bill to debate shop trading hours, it was all or nothing, just as this bill is today. I am not quite sure what was so complicated about that, but what I am cognisant of is that the Treasurer did not put in time before the election to make sure he had a bill ready to go, that nobody was working all hours 24/7, day and night, to get that bill before us in those first 100 days, that we did not require our staff here in the parliament or indeed our MPs to sit additional days of parliament to get that bill debated or at least onto the Notice Paper in that first 100 days. But what they do require in this particular bill is to give those who work in these industries affected fewer protections and less quality of life than they currently have and less certainty with what they have to deal with.

I am proud that South Australia has one of the least duopoly driven supermarket landscapes in the country. I am proud that we have the small players who are able to get in and have a chance. I am proud that those small players, in particular, drive the purchase of South Australian foods and products on our supermarket shelves—something that would not happen if the duopoly and the big players got their way.

What we do know is that they would get their way if they were able to, and that is why they want these changes. What we do know is that while we are told that the small players will not be forced to open, and that is technically true, we know the reality of a competitive environment is that the big players will make them open or drive them into the ground.

I actually do not take this bill seriously. I have to say, here we are. It is groundhog day. It is like a Looney Tunes cartoon. We have the sheepdog and the wolf clocking in and clocking off. That is what we are dealing with here. This is not a serious attempt at a piece of legislation. This is, from the Treasurer, an offer of all or nothing full deregulation, take it or leave it, and take it to a referendum.

This is the new added extra to try to give it a little bit of newsworthiness because, quite honestly, this story has grown old and tired in this parliament. We know what the numbers are at this point. We know that the Treasurer has not come and sat down with any of the key stakeholders and said, 'Perhaps we could look at tweaks around a Sunday or some public holidays or a Saturday going later.' There has been none of those discussions. It is still this idea of all or nothing, deregulation, take it or leave it.

Why does the Treasurer do that? Why does the Treasurer take on a free gift with purchase of a referendum at the next state election? That is to make it new and interesting and somehow campaignable. This is actually just about the election that we have in 200 days. This is just an election stunt. This is nothing more than the Liberal Party and the Marshall government, but driven by their Liberal Party strategists, thinking that this is a great idea to take to the next election. They are not serious about reform here today.

There are no amendments on the table to discuss areas that Business SA and other stakeholders have raised of possible points of compromise which are well known now in the public debate to be areas where compromise could reached. That is not on the table for us today. What is on the table is yet another stunt bill. It is really ludicrous to expect the Legislative Council to take this piece of legislation seriously when it is presented in such a fashion.

I do echo the Hon. Emily Bourke's concerns and ask the question of the Treasurer: where is the actual public health advice that supported using the COVID pandemic and the declarations under the various acts, including the Emergency Management Act and the Public Health Act, in those early days to extend shop trading hours? Where is that public health advice that was used by the Marshall government? I ask for that advice to be tabled with regard to the second reading response by the government today.

I also note that the elevation of this matter to the terms of its facing a referendum to the South Australian people would be the first such referendum in some 30 years. I think it would be the first such referendum in my entire time of living in this state. I think it is extraordinary to treat the people of South Australia with such contempt that we need a referendum on this matter where it is put as an all or nothing proposition, no compromise entertained—and, indeed, no compromise attempted to be reached within the parliament of the state—before that is taken to a referendum.

What I do reflect on is that the Treasurer will soon have all the time in the world to shop. I wish him well with his shopping. I do not think he is going to get much traction with this in the council today and I certainly do not think that this is the electoral winner that the Liberal Party thinks it is.

When people understand the impact that this could have on small businesses, on those workers who currently have some certainty and some security about not being dragged into work at all times of the day or night—regardless of their caring obligations or their other life, or indeed being able to play sport on the weekends and other parts of our community fabric—once you have those conversations with people, as the Hon. Emily Bourke has noted, it does not take long. It takes a few minutes into a conversation about this issue for people to move from wanting to shop to understanding what it is to work in these industries and what it is to treat those people with fairness and dignity.

While you still have your rights to shop and ability to shop, and I think currently we have the balance pretty well right, there are some areas of compromise on the table and the Greens would consider some of those that have been put out there. I understand the Labor opposition leader has publicly stated that he would be willing to have some conversations about compromise.

The member for Croydon was, of course, part of a compromise deal previously reached with Business SA prior to his election to this parliament, so you would think that he is probably going to be up for having conservations in the future in his now role as a member of this parliament. But the Treasurer is not interested in those conversations. The Treasurer is interested in cynical, political trickery.

I do not propose to revisit the arguments that I have put to this chamber before, and I refer those who are either avid readers of Hansard or are following this debate today online to my previous remarks. This has been an issue, and I have noted this before, that does pique public interest. Everyone has an opinion. People are interested in this issue. I will give you 10 out of 10 for political strategy there in terms of the Liberal Marshall government's thinking.

However, once you have those conversations, people shift. Once you actually talk about sitting down and having a compromise then maybe you might get the reform that some, who you purport to represent, seek but right now you are not doing them any service at all by presenting an all or nothing argument. It is few and far between in terms of the lobby that does want full deregulation.

Most lobbyists that come and meet with us actually—they may be in strong support of reform but they are also in strong support of that being reached by compromise and conversations, not presenting the parliament with these all or nothing bills and not taking these issues to a referendum. It is utterly a joke. It is contemptuous really of the time of this parliament and the people's lives who have been put to such levels of anxiety and uncertainty because of this ongoing Looney Tunes debate.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:48): I welcome the opportunity to also put on the public record my opposition to this push to deregulate shop trading hours in South Australia. As has been stated, this is something that will have a terrible impact on small businesses in our state. It is a free kick for Coles and Woolies and it is a kick in the guts for the small business sector in South Australia. But do not just take my word for it, do not just take the word of the Greens for it, or the word of the Labor Party or the other crossbenchers. What does the peak lobby group representing the business sector in South Australia have to say about it? What do they have to say?

I had a look in today's paper—and it should be noted that Business SA is the go-to group for the Liberal Party when it comes to business policy. That is the group from which they seek their counsel, and the CEO of Business SA is a leading businessperson in his own right, a highly respected South Australian, indeed the former Lord Mayor of the City of Adelaide, with whom I had the pleasure of working many years ago. He is a highly respected person and somebody who has run many successful businesses in his own right. What does he have to say about it on behalf of Business SA, the peak body representing the business sector in this state, from whom the Liberal Party seek political counsel? He has said:

What got the board over the line—

in terms of their new position in opposition to the Liberals' policy—

was the somewhat unsung impact that total deregulation would have on the supply chains of the shopfronts.

There are thousands of businesses that get a start through independent retailers and if they lose the ability to get that start, it’s quite a significant impact.

What else does the Business SA charter say in this regard? They have released this today via an article in The Advertiser, and I am quoting from that. They said that with further liberalisation in the current environment there would need:

…to be a balance to ensure local independent retailers and their local supply chains can remain viable against national and multinational players which are better placed to absorb the higher costs of weekend and public holiday penalty rates.

In other words, this is going to have a terrible impact on the small players, and it really is a free kick for the big end of town, which we know the Liberal Party are all about.

So why on earth are they putting this forward when Business SA, the peak body from whom the Liberals take all their advice on business policy, has disavowed this toxic policy? I can only assume the last ones standing will be the Property Council and Daniel Gannon; I am sure he will be singing its praises. There is not anyone out there—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: No, he will be turning too.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: He is going to dump it.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: He will be the next one to turn.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: He will be dumping it next. There is no-one out there in the community who actually supports this. It is opposed by the union movement. It is opposed by the business sector. Maybe the Property Council are the last ones standing, but they will be the next ones to dump it. So why on earth would the Liberals be putting this forward? Could it be that after just 3½ years they have already run out of ideas? Could it be that after 3½ years they are already running on empty when it comes to a vision for this state?

Back in a previous life, I remember being in the Senate on the days prior to the double dissolution election, that ill-fated double dissolution election that was called by Malcolm Turnbull, one of the many duds that the Liberal Party have sent to The Lodge over the last decade. Well, he had no vision for our country either, and I remember turning up to the Senate each day and looking at the Notice Paper, and what did I see? A blank sheet when it came to government business.

I am feeling a groundhog day here, as I look at the threadbare agenda of the Marshall government. After just 3½ years, what have they done? They have gone back to the cupboard and thought, 'What have we got sitting around? What's the frozen pizza we can pull out?' And it is this old chestnut that we have tried time and time again, a policy that has been knocked back by this parliament in the past, a policy that has been opposed by business leaders, union leaders, members of the community. What do we do when we are out of ideas? We go back to that old frozen pizza, we stick it in the microwave and out it comes. That is what we have seen here today with this old chestnut, the deeply unpopular and unsuccessful policy that has been promoted by the Treasurer.

I do want to make a few comments about the Liberal Party's obsession with referendums. They are very fond of referendums. Indeed, the last time the Liberals were pushing one—and, again, I mentioned the great dud that was Malcolm Turnbull; he loved referendums, particularly when it came to the rights of marginal people in our community. Of course, he subjected us to the pointless and highly divisive plebiscite on marriage equality.

Now it seems workers' rights are going to be subject to an opinion poll on behalf of the Liberals, such is the contempt with which they hold working people. It is a disgrace, it is a waste of this council's time, and it is, I think, treating working people with complete contempt. This is the party, supposedly, of small business, yet it is happy to kick small South Australian businesses in the guts in the middle of this pandemic.

This is the party that supposedly stands for families, yet it is happy to support a policy that will make it very difficult for families who are working in small business. Really, this is pure ideology; that is all this is about. This parliament can see through it, the South Australian people can see through it, and really it is time for the Marshall government to go back to the drawing board and to come up with some ideas, because this is a complete joke.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:55): I rise to speak against both the bill to deregulate shopping hours and, of course, the referendum. I would like to commend the speakers we have heard today on their impassioned and spirited defence of the retail sector in South Australia. They clearly have done the research. They have spoken to the sector and of course they have come up with the only conclusion that you can come up with, that we need to protect what we have that is unique here in South Australia.

I am going to have to channel the honourable leader of the opposition here, the Hon. Kyam Maher. I found his comments regarding groundhog day quite colourful and entertaining. I am driving into work today and I am just coming down King William Street, and what song pops up on my music player?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No, it was not Smokey Robinson, Shop Around.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Dolly Parton?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: I am sure the Hon. Mr Pangallo does not need any assistance.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No, I do not. Of course, we know what song it was: I got you babe. Normally when a song like that pops up, you get a vision in your mind of the artist—Sonny and Cher. But no, the first image that popped up in my head was Rob Lucas, and I am going to have to front him today.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: You got him, babe.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I got him.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: So that song is now—I think they call them 'earworms'. Is that what they call them? That is in my mind today, and every time I hear that it is the image of the honourable Treasurer. I appreciate the honourable Treasurer in the light that he takes this debate. I will say to the Hon. Tammy Franks that I did have quite a cordial conversation with the Hon. Rob Lucas about electric vehicles but also we raised the shopping hours debate again and it was quite a cordial discussion with him. We did not sing a song over it.

Again, we proffered the idea that perhaps we could look at some kind of flexibility on weekends. That has been flagged by the honourable Leader of the Opposition in the House of Assembly, Peter Malinauskas, that we look at extending hours on Saturday and Sunday from 9am to 6pm. I am quite open to that, but no, the Treasurer is quite adamant that it is all or nothing for him.

The Hon. Tammy Franks quite rightly nailed it. I will call this for what it is: it is an illusion—a political illusion from a master necromancer. It is not an insult, it is a magician. And I think it is, again, waving the wand.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo ought to continue with his speech and ignore the interjections.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: To go further on the referendum matter, why did the government not do the same thing and call a referendum on gambling, pokies legislation, euthanasia, abortion, or sex worker reform? These are real issues. These are the issues that the public of South Australia really care about. Perhaps they could pose those questions, or this question, when they do their own election polling: would you still support extended, deregulated shopping hours if it resulted in higher prices for your groceries and loss of small businesses? What about asking the punters that question?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: And then try to explain that to the people who take part in these surveys. This is what happens in surveys—we have all experienced them—you get a loaded question and of course somebody is going to say yes or no to that, but many times people really are not as informed about the subject as they perhaps should be.

As I said, this would be costly to the vibrant, independent sector that we have here. The lowest prices in Australia. Budget Direct reported just last week that Adelaide enjoys the lowest grocery prices in Australia. And why do we have it? It is because we have this vibrant, independent grocery chain that is giving those two giants a run for their money. They make up 30 per cent of the sector and we are proud of them and what they do. They make it a very competitive situation and those two giants, Woolies and Coles—and I think we might chuck Aldi in there, but certainly the two giants—are intent on trying to hoover up a sector here and then of course consumers will be made to pay for it.

We saw that story last week about two interstate national industry groups putting out a survey saying that 60 per cent were in favour of the deregulation. That is interesting. I am informed that one of those groups does not even have members in South Australia. They are interstate, in the Eastern States, and they think, 'Well, what's good for the Eastern States should be the same for South Australia.' Well, that is not the case.

I do commend the welcome about-face by Business SA today, which does support partial deregulation on weekends, and which, like Labor, we are inclined to support. The Greens have also expressed an interest in that. I am not quite sure about the Hon. John Dawkins—yes, he nods as well, so there we go. We are quite open to that. If you are really serious about deregulating shopping hours, let's get the ball rolling first up and let's have a look.

We are all happy to do that on weekends and I think weekends are the time when people would appreciate a bit of an extension, particularly on Sunday mornings. Opening up at 11am on Sunday morning—if you opened up at 9am it might prove a bit of a problem for those members of the Liberal party who may be caught up trying to sign up members in Pentecostal churches.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Anyway, as I have mentioned, we are open to that. We support the small businesses in shopping centres and malls that will be put under enormous pressure by their landlords to open. Many still choose not to open on Sundays or public holidays like Boxing Day because it is not viable.

I remember a couple of years ago, before the pandemic struck, when the Treasurer gleefully announced the Boxing Day shopping in the metropolitan area, I thought I would go out and have a look. I spent the whole day. I went everywhere. I went to the major shopping centres, and of course they were there. The public went there and enjoyed that. But I went to the smaller centres, and the shops were closed. There was nobody in the supermarkets. It was dead as a doornail. We can see who benefits from all this. It is the big players, the big end of town, who of course as we know are strong supporters of the Liberal Party.

We support the other businesses in the supply chain, which would be swallowed up and disappear if these big retailers grabbed more of a market share. The food producers I have met who have had to deal with these giants tell me how they have been monstered to provide their goods at prices that barely make it worthwhile for them. I spoke to a grower of capsicums, for instance, a few weeks ago. I said to him, 'I've noticed the capsicums are pretty cheap in the supermarkets at the moment.' He shook his head and said, 'Do you know what? We are forced to sell them at a price that we can barely break even.'

Before he died, I had a robust conversation—it was an enjoyable one, I must say—with the late Vili Milisits, the great South Australian pieman, as we all know, who sadly passed away in March this year. He was being pressured by On The Run to drop his prices so that they could sell his products, his pastries, pies, pasties and sandwiches, at a highly discounted price. Vili said to me, 'Why would I want to lose money for these companies to profit more on it? I'm not going to do that,' and he stood up for it.

You may also recall that Coles also monstered Vili and even took his products off the shelf because he would not put his price down. Of course, he said to them, 'Go right ahead,' and what happened? There was a consumer backlash. The consumers wanted his products back on the shelf, and what did they do? They put them back on there.

I see the scant regard that some of these big players also show our local producers. I think of companies like Spring Gully. We all know the Spring Gully story from a few years ago when they looked like they were going to shut down and were having problems even getting exposure on supermarket shelves. The community rallied behind them to save that company and they are there today, although I notice now that their position on the supermarket shelves is not as prominent as it was when there was so much controversy surrounding it, but they are there because consumers wanted that.

As I said, I welcome the announcement today by Martin Haese from Business SA and their about-face on that. They can see what the situation is. In fact, the former lord mayor was on ABC radio this morning. Mr Haese is a man who actually knows business.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: He knows business. Exactly.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: He knows business.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: He is Martin Haese, and we know of his contributions, not only as lord mayor but before he went into that office, as a person who was a retailer and involved in business, particularly with Rundle Mall. So he knows what it is all about. Here is what he said to Ali Clarke on ABC radio this morning, and this was before Sonny and Cher popped up on my music player, by the way.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: There it is again. He said:

It's a hyper competitive market, it keeps prices in check right now so for consumers the current situation is already a win. If the market rationalises in favour of let's say larger players in the market and that happens at the expense of smaller players in the market, guess who loses? Their suppliers. The thousands of small businesses who are too small to supply a large national or international supermarket, but they can get in the door of a smaller one. They're the ones whose back we are looking after.

'They're the ones whose back we are looking after,' say Business SA. They are the ones whose backs we are looking after as well in this place. Small business is the biggest employer of people in South Australia—small business is the biggest employer—and they are the ones that we are here to protect.

That brings me to another essential group that we at SA-Best support—and I am sure my colleagues do—and that is our retail workers. They have been at the forefront of the challenges posed to our community since the start of the pandemic. They perform their customer service duties in an exemplary manner. They have remained cheerful and helpful, sometimes in the face of abuse from some recalcitrant customers. We should value each of them, from the casuals to the permanent staff. We should also ensure that they get the working conditions and job security they deserve, and not be at the whim of grocery giants maximising their profits at the expense of their workforce.

I am not convinced by the argument that deregulation will create more jobs. It will not. It will not mean more money being spent because all you are doing is circulating the dollar that is already there in people's pockets. As far as the ordinary shopper is concerned, extended shopping hours has not been on the radar for most of them. I really do not believe it is. It is not an issue that they grapple with every day like the Treasurer does or the Premier or others in the Liberal government because they can see that there is a promise that is not going to be fulfilled come 2022.

I do not think the ordinary shopper really cares. It will come up in the media, talkback radio will be abuzz, you will get people talking about it and then it dies down. The interesting thing in the three and a bit years that I have been in parliament—and this issue, as the Hon. Tammy Franks has indicated, it is the issue that keeps coming up and keeps coming up—but my inbox has not been flooded with emails from people saying, 'You must vote for deregulated shopping hours. What are you doing?' It has not. I have not even received one. The only ones I get it from are the self-interest groups, the organisations that are pushing for it. I do not get it.

I have had thousands of emails on other more important issues in our community that we have discussed in this place. They are the issues that matter to South Australians. Shopping hours? No, they do not. All it is, is a matter of convenience for some about when they can go and do their shopping. It is all about convenience. If you had to explain to them the implications they could face, including that that basket of groceries you have just walked out with could see a 20 per cent or 30 per cent increase if we lost or had our independent sector hit, or you could be paying more or you could lose the local butcher or other local small businesses in your centre if we allowed the deregulation, that is what we face here. So I am not convinced at all by those arguments that they keep trotting out.

The other thing people need to be aware of is that stores can actually open from one minute past midnight on Monday to Saturday right now. Stores are doing this or staying open later in the city. They can open later in the city, up until 7 o'clock I think, and the Hon. Robert Simms can confirm that, but how many of them do you actually see stay open until then? They do not because it is not viable for them. If they took the time to be better informed of the actual costs to small business, conditions for workers in the retail sector and the cost of goods they would soon change their minds.

We all know that the current trading hours are working well, and they have been for many years. They are not broken. The minister can still, at the turn of a pen, make a decision to have trading on ANZAC Day, Black Friday, Boxing Day or whatever. He can still do that if he wishes to. Is what we have at the moment really broken? It is working effectively.

Let's not forget who is going to benefit the most from the Treasurer's obsession. It is the big end of town, the big, commercial shopping precincts. It is the property owners who do not have to pay stamp duty on the purchase of large commercial properties—that is pretty good—or who have had their land tax bill reduced. This is just another sweetener for them, leading up to the 2022 election. We all know that they have given financial support to the Liberals, and we know that the big supermarket chains have provided donations.

I want to make this point, particularly here in South Australia: Woolies are not just the fresh food people that we all think they are. They also happen to be the biggest pokie barons in this state. Why do they not start divesting themselves of their hoard of gaming machines that suck up the money from their own battling shoppers?

We are yet to see the dust settle on the economic fallout from COVID. There are many businesses hanging by their fingernails right now. I have many friends who are in small business and, when they see me, the first thing is that they come up to me and say, 'What are we going to do? What are we going to do when this thing ends?' Some of them are finding it very difficult to continue trading and are locked in talks with their landlords. I also have some sympathy for landlords because they have been suffering as well.

We passed legislation in this place that gave rent relief to many of these people. The whole community is suffering here, and it is going to be difficult for them to find the cash when this thing is all over to try to maintain their business, maintain their staff and continue as they are going. Some of them are even struggling with having to consider now whether to renew their leases. This COVID pandemic is so uncertain and we do not know how long it will continue. Some people have to commit to paying rents of up to $100,000 a year, and they say, 'We didn't make any money last year. We had to put staff off. We are finding it difficult.'

It is actually an inopportune time to try to shove this legislation down the throats of the community and the business sector, because they cannot afford it. We cannot even contemplate going down this track until we are at the other end of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly right now with what we see happening in New South Wales, which has become a total basket case because of the inept handling of it by the Premier there. I am hearing stories now also coming out of Victoria that there could well even be food shortages as a result of that. So there are severe consequences from that.

I reiterate that SA-Best stands shoulder to shoulder with Labor, the Greens, Mr Darley, the retail workers in South Australia and the independent grocers in South Australia. We stand shoulder to shoulder with them, because we are there to protect their interests and to ensure that the community, the consumers of South Australia, enjoy the lowest prices in the country and will continue to do so. Thank you very much.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:20): I thank members for their contributions at the second reading of the debate, although I do not agree with much of what has been said and I will outline the reasons for that. The arguments that I have heard proffered this afternoon I have heard for all of my career in this parliament.

When we first moved to late night shopping on Thursday and Friday nights, it was going to be the end of the independent retail sector. When we moved to Saturday afternoon trading, it was going to be the end of the independent retail sector. When we moved to Sunday trading, it was going to be the end of the independent retail sector. The same arguments have been used for 30 or 40 years. The same arguments get trotted out, sometimes by the same people, sometimes by new people but with the same arguments.

The reality is that this is inevitable. It will not happen today because of the majority in this particular chamber, but this is inevitable. Why? Because history shows it is inevitable. Seventy per cent of people—not the business groups, not the union bosses, not the vested interests, but 70 per cent of the punters out there, households and families, when you ask them over the decades, 'Do you want greater freedom of choice to shop?' they say, 'Yes, please, will you help us?'

The vested interests will always band together in various uneasy coalitions to oppose change. I have seen it myself. As I said, Thursday night trading, Friday night trading, Saturday trading, Sunday trading, were going to be the end of the world as we knew it. The reality is that the world moves on. South Australia edges closer and closer to the rest of Australia in terms of its shop trading hours.

Whilst the numbers might not be there today, it is inevitable in relation to what is going to happen because the people want this. This government will campaign through to the next election and beyond because the people want this. We are not much interested in the vested interests that rail against it, represented by various groups in this debate this afternoon.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. E.S. Bourke interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, the Hon. Ms Bourke!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: One cautionary note I might make, for the benefit of the Hon. Mr Pangallo, is that I do hope he has checked his research, because I have to say—and I do not have all the detail of the Liberal Party's donations—that I am unaware of Coles and Woolworths having made donations to the Liberal Party in South Australia.

The Hon. Mr Pangallo might have checked and he might be right, so I am not saying he is wrong, but I hope he has checked because he made quite a specific allegation in relation to political donations in his contribution. I am unaware, but certainly I can check the public record after this debate, because everything does have to be disclosed under our disclosure laws to the Electoral Commission.

Putting that issue to the side for the moment, a significant part of this debate swings on the issue of the claim that this will be the end of independent retailing in South Australia. There was the extraordinary claim from the Hon. Ms Bourke that, if you go into a Coles or Woolworths supermarket, you will see the barbecue chickens at the back of the shop for some reason. I do not know how often the Hon. Ms Bourke goes to supermarkets, but I can invite her to go to a number of supermarkets that I certainly go to on weekends and as you walk through the entrance and use your QR code, immediately there on the right-hand side are the hot barbecue chickens.

It may be well be the case in certain of the supermarkets the Hon. Ms Bourke goes to, but to make the generic point that in some way there was some malevolent intent by the supermarket owners to have the barbecue chickens at the end of the shop—I think she needs to get out a little bit more and do a bit more shopping in relation to barbecue chickens. Let me say, one of the reasons why those of us who are very cautious—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —with our dollars buy our barbecue chickens in shops like supermarkets is it is a darn sight cheaper than going to some of the other outlets.

The Hon. E.S. Bourke interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is easy for someone who is on $200,000 a year to say they are prepared to pay $13, $14, $15, $16 for a barbecue chicken.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: You are on more.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am talking about the Hon. Ms Bourke. I invite the Hon. Ms Bourke to talk to the punters out there. If they can get a barbecue chicken for 10 bucks—

The Hon. E.S. Bourke interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, the Hon. Ms Bourke!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —at a supermarket, and they can save $2, $3 or $4, that means a lot to those punters. That means a lot to those punters. It is alright for—

The Hon. E.S. Bourke interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bourke!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —the well-to-do members of parliament represented by the Hon. Ms. Bourke and others to say, 'Okay, they should just pay the extra price for their barbecue chicken.' Talk to the real people out there. Talk to the people out there who do not mind—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —getting a cheap barbecue chicken, which they can then feed their family with and meet the bills that they have to meet on a weekly basis. It is a struggle for many South Australians out there. It might not be a struggle for members of the Labor Party in the opposition. They might be quite happy to spend an extra $3 or $4 or $5 on their barbecue chicken, but we are prepared to think of—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order, Leader of the Opposition!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —the struggling workers, struggling families, who want to actually be able to go to a supermarket to have the freedom of choice to buy a barbecue chicken at whatever price they want to, and let them compete in the marketplace for their barbecue chicken.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition should come to order.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I love my barbecue chicken, and I love a cheap barbecue chicken.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. E.S. Bourke interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bourke had her say.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: And so did the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition will cease.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Let's talk about this fallacious claim that this is going to be the end of independent retailers. As I said, we have heard this for decades. Independent retailers continue to go from strength to strength in South Australia. One of the pieces of research done by respected market research company Quantum Market Research—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Simms is out of order.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Respected market research company Quantum Market Research asked the question, in essence: if larger shops—e.g. discount stores, department stores, supermarkets, etc.—could open for longer, would you continue to support smaller local retailers? This is the essential premise that is being asked; that is, if the big stores are open, would you continue or would you not continue to support? Ninety per cent of South Australian punters said yes, they would continue to support local retailers.

They will have the choice. They can do some shopping at their local retailers, they can do some shopping at their supermarkets, but they will continue to provide support to local retailers in addition, I am sure, to going to supermarkets at times of their own convenience. But they would have the option in terms of their shopping choices.

As I said, respected market research company Quantum Market Research did the polling and what it showed was 23 per cent of adults were more likely to shop local and 66 per cent would shop as much. So the vast majority, 66 per cent, would just continue as they were shopping at the moment at the same level, and 23 per cent said they would shop more. It left less than 10 per cent who said that they would shop less in terms of their support for local smaller retailers in the South Australian marketplace. That is research. The facts are, for the last 30 or 40 years, the reality has shown that the independent retailers in South Australia have continued to survive and thrive. Why? Because they provide a niche.

The people like the Hon. Ms Bourke, who are quite happy to pay for select items or local produce or higher price products or more competitive products or whatever it might be, or the retail experience, go to some of these supermarkets and there is someone playing a piano, there are free apples in the corner, there are all sorts of very attractive enticements and some South Australians love it. They continue to love it and they continue to shop there.

My wife is a perfect example of someone who shops at independent retailers. I shop at Coles and Woolies because it is cheaper. I am happy to do so. I want to get my barbecue chickens at the cheapest possible price. My wife loves the experience of the independent retailers.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I think the Treasurer should continue.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On some weekends, I will go to the local independent retailer—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Leader of the Opposition is out of order.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —in our suburban area because it is the only supermarket which is allowed to open, because it is under 400 square metres, so I do support those particular shopping times.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, because the big ones are closed.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bourke!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I cannot go to the big supermarkets at various hours.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If it is before 11 o'clock on a Sunday and I have to do my shopping, I cannot go to a supermarket which is bigger than 400 square metres because you lot will not let me.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You lot will not let us go to a supermarket above 400 square metres. If it is 395 square metres, you will let me go. So what do the current laws allow? There were stores that had 500 square metres of retail space and, when it was pointed it out them that they were trading unlawfully, what did they do? They actually reduced the size of their store to 395 square metres, in some cases, by moving the fridges in from the wall or whatever it might be so that they got under this magic 400 square metre mark. Magic!

You were talking about magic, Hon. Mr Pangallo. A 500 square metre store all of a sudden became 395 square metres and it was able to trade whenever it wanted to. It was the same sized store but somehow it had magically had its trading area reduced to under 400 square metres. That has been the reality of the independent retailers.

This is where we are at the moment and why this is inevitable and why those who oppose this debate just ignore what is going on in the retail market at the moment. The Hon. Mr Pangallo recounted a story of Vili and On The Run. The legislation that the majority in this chamber are going to support actually gives to the On The Run franchise the biggest free kick in the world. People rail against Coles and Woolworths, but the legislation that the majority in this chamber are going to support gives On The Run the biggest free kick in the world.

Why? Because through the vagaries of the current legislation, they can and do trade 24 hours a day seven days a week. If you go to their websites, they are now increasingly trading as On The Run Supermarkets. If you go down to Aldinga or a number of their bigger recent outlets, there is a big neon sign and their websites say, 'Visit On The Run Supermarkets,' and they are massive establishments. But because of this legislation, which we are seeking to tidy up, the On The Runs of this world, of course, are going to oppose the changes that the government has indicated because they can trade 24 hours a day.

If you talk to some of the retailers on Kensington Road, for example, who have been protesting against the On The Runs coming into that particular area and the other retailers, the On The Runs have their 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year trading, and that is total deregulation. That is the real definition of full deregulation. That is the situation that is being supported by the majority in this chamber.

They are going to take an increasing share of the market, and for the poor worker or the punter who cannot get to a supermarket and has to buy something after hours—after 5 o'clock on a Saturday or Sunday night or before 11 o'clock or on a public holiday—if the only outlet that is open is the On The Run, trust me, the equivalent of the barbecue chicken or the two-litre container of milk or the loaf of bread is significantly more expensive in those particular outlets than it is in a supermarket.

Those punters, those workers, those families, those households, struggling for a quid in those particular areas; that is the only outlet they are going to be able to go to: either an On The Run supermarket or a small under 400 square metres supermarket that is allowed to open and trade in their particular area if they happen to have one.

The other fact of life which people just want to ignore is the reality that online shopping is growing like crazy. COVID has assisted that, but it was growing like crazy before COVID. COVID has exacerbated it. It has made it easier for people. They have been forced to do it, and they have found that it is easy, and we will see, as we emerge from COVID, that online retailing will take an increasing share of the market.

Brick and mortar retailers of all persuasions—not just the supermarkets—are increasingly going to have to compete against the online retailers. The reality of this world is that unless retailers and supermarkets can provide the convenience and the attraction in their brick and mortar retailing, then more and more people will move to the online retailing market. That is the reality.

Talk to the young ones. Talk to the young ones, people much younger than anyone in this particular chamber. Talk to the young ones in relation to their preference for online retail purchasing. As we move through the generations, in the future online retailing, which is 24/7, will become more and more of a reality for more and more punters and households that can afford it in the community. There are some who cannot afford it, but for those who can afford it, it will become increasingly a reality for them.

This whole debate so far has been dominated by supermarkets. The reality is that our shop trading laws are such a dog's breakfast that people forget that it is not just supermarkets; it is retailing generally. We have this crazy law which has 200 square metres so that if you are a retail outlet—not a supermarket—that is more than 200 square metres, you have these restrictions. Down at Harbour Town on a public holiday you have outlets that sell furnishings or household goods or sporting goods who happen to be 250 square metres in size who are not allowed to trade—at Harbour Town.

They say, 'This is unfair. Why can everybody else trade, but we can't trade? Why can't we sell sandshoes, footy boots, or whatever it might happen to be, because we are 250 square metres?' Those of you who want to defend these crazy laws; no-one has ever proffered an explanation in this particular debate as to why that makes any sense at all. There is no sense at all for that sort of restriction.

Some of those outlets down at Harbour Town and elsewhere who want to expand, who want to employ more South Australians in a bigger store—and some of these might be just under 200 square metres; they say, 'Well, it makes no sense for us to do that, because if we do that we can't trade for up to 10 or 11 public holidays in a year. We can't trade at various other times of the day or week, because your crazy laws say there's a 200 square metre rule if you happen to be over that.'

Our whole debate at the moment has been dominated by supermarket versus supermarket. What it misses is that there are a lot of retail outlets and stores which are not supermarkets which are also impacted by the crazy laws that we have here in South Australia.

The final point in relation to this fallacy, this furphy, is in relation to the reality that from Mount Barker to Mount Gambier to Victor Harbour to Port Pirie to Whyalla to Port Lincoln we have 24/7 trading anyway.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: Not in Millicent, we don't.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Other than Millicent. The Hon. Ms Scriven points out the particular anomaly of Millicent. In every other part of regional South Australia, starting from Mount Barker, with the exception of Millicent, we have what everyone here says is going to be the end of the world, and they have had it for a decade, a very long time anyway. They say that it is going to be the end of the world and there will be no independent retailers left, there will be no fruit and veg shops in Mount Gambier. I invite the Hon. Mr Maher to—well, he has finished speaking, so he cannot speak, but he knows there is a number of very popular fruit and veg outlets trading very successfully in Mount Gambier.

All of these independent stores are going to disappear, but there has been 24/7 retailing in the regions of South Australia for years and years. The world has not ended for independent retailing, the world has not ended for families and communities and workers within those particular areas. People complained about the work-life balance. Where is the problem in regional South Australia, in Mount Gambier or in any of those other regional areas that we are talking about?

We also have not quite as much, but certainly much more, freedom of choice in the CBD. I still have not heard an explanation from the ex-boss of the shoppies' union, the Hon. Mr Malinauskas, or the current boss of the shoppies' union, my good friend Joshie Peake, as to why work-life balance is not a problem for workers who work in CBD stores but it will be if they happen to work in Marion or Noarlunga.

What is so special about the workers in Marion or Noarlunga as opposed to the thousands who work in the CBD on Boxing Day, on public holidays and for extended hours at other times? There is no argument, as I said, from the ex-boss of the shoppies' union or the current boss of the shoppies' union as to why workers in the regions and workers in the CBD are different to potential workers at Marion or Noarlunga. There is no answer, because the reality is there is no explanation. There is no support for the argument from the shoppies' union and those who support them in relation to shop trading hours.

One other issue that was raised that I do need to address was the claim made by the Hon. Ms Bourke and the Hon. Ms Franks, I think it was, that politics was being played in the pandemic and there was no public health advice. The Hon. Ms Bourke knows that that is wrong. She knows that that is untrue. On 6 August last year, I sent a response to a freedom of information request to the Hon. Ms Bourke, and I will quote from that. She was unwilling to quote the actual emails. We sought advice from the Minister for Health's office as to what the public health advice was in relation to shop trading during the pandemic, and the email that came back from the Minister for Health's office was:

Thanks for the email. I have discussed this with Chris Lease, Deputy Chief Public Health Officer, and he has indicated the public health advice remains supportive of any measures which can assist in physical distancing, including the continued exemption from restrictions to shop trading hours.

Bang, full stop, end of story, no argument. There is the advice. There is the advice, and it is repeated in a number of emails from Chris Lease—

The Hon. E.S. Bourke interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bourke is out of order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —the Deputy Chief Public Health Officer, relayed via, as is appropriate, the minister's office. It is appropriate to go through a minister's office to get the advice from his or her department. The Hon. Ms Bourke has worked in a ministerial office before. You do not go as a minister to offices in somebody else's department directly. You go through the minister's office, and Chris Lease, the Deputy Chief Public Health Officer, bang, end of argument. The claims made by the Hon. Ms Bourke and others have no foundation. They have never had any foundation, and they stand exposed for the falsehoods that they are.

Finally, I turn to my very good friend—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members of the opposition might have missed it, but the Treasurer said 'finally'. The Treasurer will continue.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Finally, I turn to my very good friend the current chief executive officer of Business SA, Mr Martin Haese. I was asked earlier by some members of the media and others whether I was surprised. I said, 'No, I'm not surprised, because Martin Haese has been an unabashed campaigner against freedom of choice in trading hours for many years.'

In fact, I have a photograph on the steps of Parliament House, where Mr Martin Haese is standing with Mr Peter Malinauskas, the Hon. Frank Pangallo—yes, you would have been 'Hon.' at that stage—the Hon. Mr Darley, the Hon. Ms Franks, the Hon. Mr Parnell, Colin Shearing from the Independent Retailers, Theo Vlassis I recognise, and one or two other faces I recognise as well. It is a lovely photograph. All of them are there, saying, 'I commit to keeping the balance that backs SA jobs, farms and shops by stopping deregulation of trading hours.' This was three or four years ago, well before he became the chief executive of Business SA.

Was I surprised? Of course not. I have known Martin Haese's position on shop trading hours for a long period of time. He has publicly campaigned against greater freedom of choice in relation to these particular issues for a long period of time. The Hon. Mr Simms nods his head because he probably knows, as I do, that Mr Haese's position on this particular issue has been well known to those of us who have known Martin during the years. It is unremarkable that after a couple of years in the job Business SA has come some way back from its original position of support for the government's position.

As I said at the outset of this speech, the objective for our government is not about pleasing individual groups like the shoppies union. Unlike Mr Malinauskas, we do not have to get permission from the shoppies union as to what our policy should be on shop trading hours. If Josh Peak says, 'Pete, you can't actually do this,' then he is not allowed to do it. That is as simple as that. Business SA does not dictate policy to the Liberal Party.

They came up with their wonderful idea for a swimming pool in the River Torrens. We did not agree with that one either. It ain't going to happen. Possibly, if there is a Labor government, they indicated some interest in the swimming pool in the River Torrens. On this particular view of shop trading hours, we respectfully disagree with the position of Business SA. They do not dictate policy to the South Australian Liberal Party.

We respectfully disagree with them on these and some other issues, but we very happily agree with them on many other issues, and that is as it should be. We respectfully listen. There are some issues that we will agree with, and there will be some issues that we disagree with. This one and the swimming pool in the River Torrens are two examples of policies that we will not be supportive of. We accept the fact that this legislation on the public declarations of position will not pass this afternoon. I will address some briefer comments to the referendum bill when we get to the referendum bill, so it will not make any commentary here.

I indicate again that we will happily campaign on an issue that is supported by 70 per cent of the punters out there right through to March of next year and beyond. Come Boxing Day late this year, just three months prior to the election, should we have trading on Boxing Day, we will be indicating that if the ex-shoppies union boss was to be elected in March that would be the end of Boxing Day trading, or indeed Easter Monday trading, extended hours on Cyber Fridays or trading on Adelaide Cup Day holidays, because the shoppies union just will not allow the ex-shoppies union boss, the current leader of the Labor Party, to do anything like that that 75 per cent of the punters out there want.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 7

Noes 12

Majority 5

AYES
Centofanti, N.J. Girolamo, H.M. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. (teller)
Stephens, T.J.
NOES
Bourke, E.S. Darley, J.A. Franks, T.A.
Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K. Maher, K.J. (teller)
Ngo, T.T. Pangallo, F. Pnevmatikos, I.
Scriven, C.M. Simms, R.A. Wortley, R.P.
PAIRS
Wade, S.G. Bonaros, C.

Second reading thus negatived.

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