Adjourned debate on second reading
 
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Democrats oppose this Bill and intend to vote against it in all its stages. We are convinced that South Australia does not need any change to shop trading hours. In saying that, I think commonsense sometimes does determine some flexibility, but the big risk of offering any flexibility is that it opens the door for the heavyweightsóthose who want to manipulate an advantage in the market to virtually crush out the small and medium traders and retailers. It gives them that foot in the door, and we do not intend to be party to giving it.
 What is quite clear is that the small retailers particularly have done some very specific analysing of the various measures that are proposed in the Bill, and very persuasively develop arguments to show that, at the very least, these changes will disadvantage the vast majority of small retailers and in some cases will drive them out of existence. I cannot understand how the Government, which portrays itself as the defender of the small entrepreneuróthe private enterprise activities in this Stateócan introduce a measure which is such a blunt instrument to severely wound, sometimes mortally, what they have portrayed in the past to be their natural electorate. For their own edification, that natural electorate is moving around and looking for other political representatives.
 We believe that this is a temporary sop, supposedly for the benefit of big business, and that it will increase the market share of the three major supermarket chains at the expense of retailers, and I have some data to include in Hansard to support this position. In the past 20 years the major chains have increased their market share from 40 per cent to 80 per cent and, unlike the situation in the United States, there are no antitrust laws to stop them eventually getting it all. This, in turn, will reduce the number of jobs in retailing, because the ratio of employ-ment per dollar turnover of small retailers is three times as many staff as those engaged by the major enterprises, particularly the major supermarkets.
 It is also a gross deception to present this as a measure that is responding to large public demand. It just is not there, except for an occasional murmur of disquiet because someone has not been able get what they wanted exactly at the hour at which they decided it was convenient for them. But those are the only indications that there is any request at all for an extension of shop trading hours.
 The vast majority of members of the public, when presented with reasoned argument, understand that for businesses to remain open for extra hours it increases the overheads, in many cases substantially, and they know, as we have argued consistently, that just extending the shop trading hours does not extend the actual contents of the pocketóthe drawdown from the pockets of the dollars to be spent.
 What I think is sad about this measure is that it is another thoughtless slide down a track supposedly in recognition of this not to be challenged, almost religious, faith in deregula-tion. We have already seen the consequences where conveni-ence shops, which have been of great advantage to local communities, have dried up eventually and where `for sale' signs are on the shops. Those are the signs of a community-owned and community-benefiting retail industry disappearing before our eyes as the major heavyweights gather, by force of gravity, all the trading into these megacentres.
 The other point that anyone concerned about the econom-ics and finances of this State should realise is that the profit of that trading is to a large extent going interstate and overseas, in direct contrast to the financial benefit of the small-medium locally owned traders whose profit stays here and benefits the economy of the State. It is quite clear that there is no argument to sustain any substantial change in shop trading hours. It will only benefit those who already have an enormous market advantage.
 The Hon. Sandra Kanck: Then why is the ALP support-ing it?
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Sometimes it is a little difficult to translate the logic of ALP decisions. I suspect that there are many in the ALP who have very serious misgivings about this. As I recall, it was led by a very strong mover and shaker in the ALP, Frank Blevins, when he had political responsibility for it, and very few people would stand up to Frank Blevins, either in or out of the ALP. This might be the hangover of his influence.
 But for the small people of the community who often regard the ALP as their champions, as they see their local convenience shops going out of existence as a result of extensive changes to shop trading hours they must look in bewilderment and ask, `Who cared about us when this measure was before Parliament?'
 The Hon. Sandra Kanck: Or know that the ALP sold them out once again.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The ALP sold them out once again, says the Hon. Sandra Kanck very wisely. But the message will be there clearly in Hansard and the media: the Democrats stood for the small retailers and for consumers who have for years benefited from localised shopping convenience, which extended shop trading hours will drive out of existence in South Australia.
 
 The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS secured the adjournment of the debate.
 

   
[Home]    [Head Office]    [SA Branches]    [What's Hot in SA]    [Mike Elliott]    [Sandra Kanck]    [Ian Gilfillan]   [SA Senators]   [SA Parliament]    [Contact Us]    [News Releases]    [National Site]    [Election]    [Support Us]    [Links]     [Newsletter]     [Browse by Subject]