Adjourned debate on second reading.
 (Continued from 26 November..)
 
  The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I rise to oppose the Bill. I found it very interesting to read the Hansard record of the comments of the member for Kaurna, Mr John Hill. He called this the `every player loses Bill', and I think it is a very appropriate title. I have listened to Opposition members and their half-hearted attempts to support the legislation. If ever there has been an example of something being damned with faint praise it has been the contribution of Opposition members in supporting the legislation. It certainly has not been a ringing endorsement.
 I recall that some two years ago at the Royal Adelaide Show the Democrats stand on which I was taking my turn was visited by a certain Mr Koutsantonis, who was a member of the SDA. He spent some time abusing me and the Democrats in a very loud voice, drawing a lot of attention from other stall holders, claiming that the Democrats had sold out on the employees, particularly those in his union. Of course, anyone who had followed that issue at the time recognised that what the Democrats had done was to make a promise to support small business when small business had said to us that at that point it was more interested in retail leases than the actual hours, and we were prepared to give ground and to support the concerns of small business.
 I found it very interesting then to read what the same Mr Koutsantonis, as the member for Peake, now has to say. He was one of those who spoke in the House of Assembly supporting this legislation. So, all I can say is that some people are very hard to read.
 The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
 The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Yes, I wonder why. Perhaps the Hon. Mr Cameron might have something to say on this when he makes his contribution. This move by the Government (supported by the Opposition) will increase the market dominance of the three major supermarket chains. That, in turn, will reduce the number of jobs available in retailing. I think it is important to recognise that for every dollar of turnover small retailers employ three times as many staff as major retailers. I think we should consider the impact that this will have on small retailers. If they have to spread the same number of dollars earned over longer hours they will be forced to cut corners in one way or another which might, for instance, result in their leaving junior staff on duty later and for longer. That will not only reduce service to consum-ers but is likely to jeopardise the safety and security of staff who work alone at night. I consider what the Government is doing in this regard, with Opposition support, is quite reprehensible.
 My colleague the Hon. Ian Gilfillan, who has responsibili-ty for this portfolio, received a letter from a husband and wife who operate two florist shops: one at Welland and the other at Hallett Cove. They detail in their letter a normal day. This was before the extension of trading hours. The letter states:
 My husband and I leave for work six days a week at 5.30 a.m. to be at the Adelaide Flower Market by 6 a.m. We are in our Welland shop by 7.30 a.m. and the Hallett Cove shop by 8 a.m. Both shops close [to the public] at 6 p.m. By the time that John gets back to Welland to pick me up (it's too costly to run two cars) and we drive home, it can be as late as 7.30 p.m. or 8 p.m.ó10.30 p.m. on Thursdays, which are a total waste of time!
That is just one small retailer who will be impacted upon by these decisions. I think it is also important to recognise that these changes to shopping hours will occur at the same time as the Government refuses to end the exploitation of retail tenants by unscrupulous landlords. I indicate that together with my colleagues the Hon. Ian Gilfillan and the Hon. Mike Elliott I strenuously oppose this legislation.