Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2392 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

We have seen radical changes in banking practices over the last few years. Banking transactions using automatic teller machines have risen to 50 per cent of all transactions. A change of the same magnitude is forecast for the retail trade. We will shop from home, using computers and modems and other technological developments. Small business must accept this challenge and try to lead the change. King Canute could not stop the tide from coming in; neither can this Government stop the deregulation of shopping hours.

MR OSBORNE (9.44): I have made no secret of the fact, over the last few weeks, that I will not be supporting this Bill.

Mr Moore: In fact, you think it is a stunt.

MR OSBORNE: I know that it is a stunt; I do not think that it is a stunt. It is very sad that the Greens fell for it. The logic that the Bill uses is naive, and its ability to positively assist our small local supermarkets is minimal. Mr Speaker, at the centre of this issue is the undeniable fact that a number of our suburban shopping centres are in trouble. I do not think you would get anyone from the Labor Party or anyone on the crossbenches disagreeing with that. During the past four years, 12 of our local suburban supermarkets have closed, and I believe that a further 20 have been classified as being "under threat". These are the facts, and they are undisputed in this debate. What is being disputed, Mr Speaker, is the ability of this Bill to successfully improve the fortunes of these local stores. As I am convinced that it will not, I am not prepared to give the Bill my support.

Mr Speaker, I think that Mr Humphries is lying to suburban people, who think that this type of legislation is going to help them. It is an out-and-out lie on the part of Mr Humphries. I am sure that, last night, we all received a copy of an appraisal of the potential effectiveness of this Bill, done by the firm Price Waterhouse.

Mr Humphries: No. We did not get one. We were not given one, I am afraid.

MR OSBORNE: I imagine that you were not given it, Mr Humphries, because they could see that you would not listen. You cannot see the facts and the truth. I think it is important for us to consider the results of this independent investigation, because its findings are damning. The investigation has produced three central findings. The first is that these proposed restricted trading hours will have a minimal impact on local supermarkets, which makes it a poor policy option. The second is that these restrictions carry a number of unfortunate side effects - like the issue that Mr Whitecross raised in question time, of the Government losing half a million dollars in payroll tax and, more importantly, over 300 people losing their jobs overnight. The third is that there are several more effective and efficient solutions that could be used to deal with the many problems that small supermarkets are facing.

To go through the document, this evaluation also notes that there are a few factors that the Government has not thought of or has not mentioned at any time so far - such as taking into account the changing demographics of our city, employment patterns and lifestyles; and what action the Government intends to take if, and when, these restricted hours do not work. There is no plan B, Mr Speaker. This has to work, or we will have caused a lot of pain in our community for nothing. Speaking on my own behalf,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .