Shop Trading Hours: Democrats Defend Jobs, Small Business

Legislative Council 26 November 1998 SHOP TRADING HOURS (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I oppose this Bill. When the question of shop trading hours has arisen in the past I have argued very strongly that one cannot look at shop trading hours in isolation and ignore other interrelated issues. The big issue is the question of genuine competition in the market-place and the impacts that this decision will have on small retailers and farmers. I can guarantee that this legislation will have a dramatic impact on both small retailers and farmers, and those members who vote for this Bill will share the blame for the consequences of that action.
I could spend some time talking about the impact on families, but other members have covered that issue. I find it absolutely amazing that some people go around talking about how important families are and how important family life is, but if there is anything that guarantees the further separation of some families it is the fact one parent or, in some cases, a sole parent will be required to work more often on a weekend or later at nightótimes when the children are at home and no responsible adult is present or when one responsible adult must work. People who talk about family life and then support this Bill are hypocritesónothing more and nothing less.
Market dominance is the issue that needs to be looked at. One has only to look back to 1985 in Australia when the major chains had 60 per cent of the market share and the independent stores had 40 per cent. Now, 13 years later, the major chains have increased their share from 60 per cent to 80 per cent, and the market share for the small independents has decreased from 40 per cent to 20 per cent. The prediction is that, within another two years, the share for major chains will increase by another 5 per cent and the share for inde-pendent stores will obviously decrease by 5 per cent to 15 per cent. That is a 5 per cent shift in two years.
I do not believe that this even takes into account the potential for changes in trading hours because I know that Woolworths was predicting that, on the basis that it could have those extended trading hours, it could increase its market share by another 4 per centóWoolworths alone could do that. Anyone who goes around saying that they care about small business and then votes for this Bill is also a hypocrite.
You cannot stop there because what about the impacts on farmers? I recommend that people have a good, long conversation with people in the pork industry. I have had one argument with a member of the Liberal Party about interpre-tations in relation to that industry. I am certainly aware that, at a national level, the Liberal line is that the pork producers are in trouble because they over-produced. The reality of the pork industry is that a couple of years ago it experienced a major reduction in numbers as a result of crop failures, and there was a major decline in pork production at that point. In fact, those numbers never picked up. In fact, there was never a surplus. The industry was doing quite well before the decline in pig numbers.
The real reason why the industry is in difficulty is one word, `Woolworths', which is the largest seller of pork products in Australia and, not surprisingly, is the largest retail operator. Woolworths owns one of the major pork process-ing plants in Australia. I am not sure what the position is right at this very moment, but I do know that, when there was a rapid decline in price, Woolworths was the biggest importer of pork into Australia. Woolworths, having succeeded in creating a dramatic drop in the price of pork, then bought that cheap pork and became the largest exporter of pork out of Australia.
The One Nation Party went around blaming all sorts of things as the cause of the difficulties for pork producers and talked about international trade agreements, etc. I must say that, from time to time, the Democrats have been very critical of some of those agreements. However, the real prob-lemóand I have seen the data to back it upófor the pork producers has been Woolworths. These big companies, Coles and Woolworths in particular, and I imagine Franklins, although I have not been into its stores, have no allegiance to Australia. They do not care where they get their stuff.
I remember a couple of years ago going through an exercise in a Coles supermarket and looking at one of its generic brands of tinned peaches, pulling it off the shelf and seeing that they had been grown in Spain. I went back two weeks later, pulled the same product off the shelf and it had been imported from another European country. I returned a further two weeks later and the same product was coming from a third European country. Basically, these stores will grab whatever dumped stuff they can get their hands on, and at a price below the cost of production. They are prepared to grab and drag it back into the Australian market. They then put pressure on the Australian producers who were not inefficient, who were paying fair wages to their workers, who were obeying all the occupational health and safety laws, who were doing all the right things as required by South Aus-tralian law and who were working efficiently but who could never produce at those dumped prices.
But no allegiance will you get to Australia from these big companies, which were just grabbing stock from anywhere they could. I did that exercise with tinned fruit and a range of other products. Frankly, these companies do not work for the good of Australia. Some people are trying to portray this move to extended trading hours as a response to competition policy.
Competition policy was about improving competition. This has nothing to do with improving competition, because Woolworths and Coles are not true competitors. They are, in fact, in many ways quite inefficient companies. When one visits a Westfield shopping centre and one sees a fruit and vegetable shop or a butcher shop competing with Woolworths or Coles in that same centre, one finds that they are usually paying a rent up to 10 times as much, and even more, per square metre. In fact, those little shops are actually running a cross-subsidy on the rents of the big shops. Woolworths and Coles fill up their checkouts with kids under the age of 18 and, mysteriously, once those kids turn 18 and start receiving an adult wage their hours disappear.
The Hon. R.R. Roberts interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: These stores play games, and I know because my daughter became involved with one of these companies. They are shocking employers. They use really cheap labour, have subsidised rents and go into a marketplace and say, `We want competition.' Well, there is no competition at the moment. It is not genuine competition, and with this move we are just handing them more of the market share, and that will grind more of the little people out of business; they will lose their livelihoods. That is what we are doing here. They will work the longer hours because they cannot afford to pay other employees. They will sacrifice their family life, but I suppose someone's family life will be sacrificed, because that is what we are requiring them to do under this legislation.
I suppose at least Woolworths and Coles will say, `Look, for these 17 or 18 year olds who work on our check-outs, family life is not so much for them, anyway, is it?' I suppose you could put that argument. I mean, they do not have families for whom they have responsibilities. This is precisely what this legislation is doing. It is no accident that, whenever you see market basket surveys, South Australia is the cheapest capital for buying products. The reason for that is at this stage this capital city has a lower dominance by the big three, but the Government will do anything to assist. Wait and watch the prices and see what competition does for prices.
This is an absolute disgrace. No-one is benefiting from this other than Coles, Woolworths and Franklins. They are the only people who have been asking for it. The Government talks about shops wanting to open. Some 95 per cent of shops can open now any time they like because they are exempted because of the area of floor and a whole range of other reasons. The fact is that they do not open because it is not worth their while opening; that is, worth their while in terms of what it does for their families and economicallyóbecause there are only so many dollars to be spent. These big shops are prepared to staff their shops with cheap, young labour and as the hours extend furtheróbecause they know the Govern-ment will do itóthey will be exposing them to greater and greater risks. They can do it, but do not tell me it has anything to do with competition; it is anti competition.
If one neglected the social questions about impacts on families and talked about genuine competition there would be a package, a package that ensured real competition. It would be a package that would give fair retail leases, but the Government has fought that tooth and nail. It would be a package that really would ensure that there was not what is essentially labour exploitation. While I am on this subject of labour exploitation, I notice that one of the most powerful members of the machine in the Labor Party will benefit from this legislation. He will benefit because the retail share of Coles and Woolworths goes up and, although there are officially no closed shops, I can tell members that, when these young kids get signed up, they all start paying their union fees. I hope that has had nothing to do with the decision.
I can tell members that I made contact with the SDA not long after it came into Parliament. I was concerned about the exploitation of young people and I sought assistance in terms of informationózero cooperation. They had nothingóor perhaps they just did not want to cooperate with the Democrats. I was wanting to look at the issue of what was being done to young people and they said that they did not have any information. That was what I was told.
The Hon. Carmel Zollo: How long ago was that?
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: That was about 12 years ago. I guess their membership, at least in the supermarket area, must be doing very well because, as I said, essentially, closed shops operate in those supermarket chains even though they are not legal. It is a nice little cosy deal. It certainly brings the money into the coffers and the young kids do not make any demands on the union, anyway. As I recall, I think even one of the Hon. Mr Lucas's children might have had that experience at one stage. My daughter was deeply dissatisfied with the treatment she was receiving from the company for which she had worked.
The Government has really shown that it does not care about families, small business, farmers and genuine competition. The Government is quite happy for the major chains' share to go to 80 per cent within two years and then go even further beyond that. It is quite happy for small businesses to go broke. I do not understand why. Sometimes Government members talk about tourists. A few weeks ago when I was looking at drug issues, I had the opportunity to visit a couple of European countries and, essentially, their trading is the same as ours. They open the centre city as we do and the suburbs tend to be closed. Yet, somehow or other when they come to Australia they expect to have something different. What a load of baloney.
The Government brings out a whole lot of specious arguments and one cannot help but perhaps think that the
electoral funding laws need to be more detailed to find out precisely from where financial support comes, because, at present, one can never tell from where all the money comes and one cannot help but have very deep suspicion. I, with my Democrat colleagues, very strongly oppose this legislation.

TOP

[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]