Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 9 November 2000

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 2000 Spring Sitting Index Browse by Subject Search all Democrats material About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I indicate the Democrats' emphatic opposition to this bill, but first I put on the record that we are supportive of enhancing the tourism industry in South Australia. Coupled with the agriculture and manufacturing sectors, it is one of our biggest export areas and provides many jobs for South Australians. That really is a truism that I am emphasising to indicate that we do not regard this measure as being in any way significant to the prosperity of the tourism industry in South Australia.

In fact, this bill is not about tourism. It is about the gradual deregulation of shop trading hours in South Australia. Having looked at the arguments supporting the bill, supposedly as a measure to support tourism, they do not stand up to scrutiny. The minister quoted many numbers in his introduction of the bill. The numbers of tourists are impressive. With 3 million visitors each year and 50 000 visitors each weekend, one would be hard-pressed to argue that Glenelg is not a tourist area. In fact, I firmly believe that it is a tourist destination, but what the bill does and how it relates to shop trading hours is interesting.

The bill proposes to allow traders in the Glenelg tourist precinct to trade during the same hours as occur in the city, these being until 9 p.m. on every weekday, until 5 p.m. on Saturdays, and from 11 a.m. until 5 p.m. on Sundays. One might say on the surface of this issue that that is fair enough because, where we have high numbers of tourists visiting an area, it would be of benefit to the local businesses to be open at these times. However, if you scratch around a bit with the evidence put forward to support this bill, it does not seem in any substantial way to consolidate the argument of the Minister for Administrative Services.

The minister quotes that, of the 285 businesses in the Glenelg tourist precinct, only 56 do not currently trade on Sundays. This leaves 229 businesses that do. These traders are able to trade mainly because of their size. Those that cannot trade are generally the larger supermarkets and chainstores. I ask: if a tourist visits Glenelg for the day or a weekend, do they intend to shop at a supermarket?

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Quite clearly not. I think that is a cynical interjection, and I hope my speech will entice my leader to add to this argument. There are supermarkets dotted all over the place, so they would not go to Glenelg specifically to shop there. Glenelg is a tourist attraction, and that is for a number of reasons-its proximity to the city; the city to Bay tram; historic buildings; and the beach and jetty. They all combine to give Glenelg its charm. Also contributing to this are the restaurants and a variety of small shops along Jetty Road, but certainly not the supermarkets. Most of these small businesses are already open on Sundays. In fact, much of their business is conducted on Sundays. To suddenly allow the supermarkets and larger stores to open as well will put these small retailers already struggling to make ends meet in a much more difficult position.

Mr John Brownsea, the executive officer of the State Retailers Association, stated as follows:

Mr Brownsea prepared the Small Retailers Association submission to the minister regarding the bill and has raised concern over the process involved. The bill is primarily an issue of shop trading hours and not tourism. Will the change in trading hours and the classification of the precinct be an excuse for increasing rents? Will retailers lose trade to the larger supermarkets? Will small retailers be hurt by the introduction of the bill? The answers to these questions quite clearly seem to be `yes'.

Although I appreciate the Labor Party's caution in respect of the bill, I am very disappointed that its members have chosen to support it. Some time ago we debated the issue of shop trading hours in the city. That was the thin end of the wedge as far as the deregulation of shop trading hours in this state is concerned. We negotiated on that matter, made some concessions and achieved some gains for small retailers, but we drew a line in the sand. Now the government is attempting to move that line. The Labor Party has chosen to retreat, but I assure you, Mr President, and the small retailers in South Australia and Adelaide that the Democrats will stand firm.

The passage of this bill is not needed and, if it passes, it will be to the detriment of the South Australian community. The Democrats will not support such an action, and those members who are interested in looking at this in some detail will be amazed at the delineation of the area which is supposedly to be determined as the Glenelg tourist precinct. It is a farce to consider that this is being put forward seriously as a measure to enhance and support tourism at Glenelg. As I have said several times throughout my contribution on the bill, it is purely an extra step towards breaking down the barriers to deregulation of shop trading hours.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The interjection from the Hon. Legh Davis shows a predictable total insensitivity to small retailers. He, and I assume his party, does not care a jot for the small, locally owned, run and staffed businesses, but would prefer to see the trade and profit go to the mega-entities, most of which are held by shareholders from interstate, and quite a substantial portion from overseas. That is not the intention of the Democrats. We do intend to protect the small retailers and we do not intend to support a bill that is really deceptive in its baldest terms. It is deregulation of shop trading hours, and it does nothing for the basic protection and enhancement of tourism.