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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2396 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, this morning, we all saw the Government and Greens display their paranoia about large companies. I would like to remind these members that most large businesses do begin as small ones. Even Woolworths and Coles began as small local stores. It makes you wonder why the Liberals and the Greens are so intent on turning off the lights in this city. The Government especially seems to have forgotten the three key words that have been highlighted in all the research and surveys that have been done in the last 18 months - "prices", which are important; "convenience"; and "jobs". It is true that we need a balance of grocery outlets in the city, but the Government and the Greens seem to have totally lost the plot. In summing up, Mr Speaker, I think that, quite frankly, as I said to Mr Moore only a few minutes ago, this is possibly the worst piece of legislation that I have seen in the 18 months that I have been in this Assembly. (Extension of time granted) The pain that this will cause not only to the people who will lose their jobs, but also to the people who will be put out - such as me and my family and many other people in the same position as we are in - will far outweigh any minuscule benefit that Mr Humphries seems to think small businesses will gain.

MS REILLY (9.59): Like many people, when I first heard this proposal when it was announced a few weeks ago, I wondered whether I had heard it correctly. Maybe Mr Osborne is right: It is a stunt. The other thing about it that is interesting is the contradictions that are inherent in it. But one part that nobody has mentioned to date is the fact that this suggestion is really quite romantic. I think it is really wonderful to look at what this proposal says. It forgets about what is happening; it forgets about the fact that it is nearly the end of the twentieth century; it is returning to some earlier time, when life was - - -

Mrs Carnell: To 1991.

MS REILLY: No. I think it is probably going back further than that - to the 1950s, with the white picket fences, the FJ Holdens, those sorts of things, when mum was at home after school because she had no opportunities to work. Then I remembered that this Liberal Government has connections with the Liberal Government in the Federal sphere and that John Howard wants to go back to the 1950s. Obviously, this Government wants to follow him and tries to pretend that we live in another world. Why do we want to pretend that this is not 1996? Why do we want to go back and change things?

Particularly in the ACT, a number of women choose to work outside the home. For that reason, a number of arrangements have to be made for doing the ordinary, everyday tasks of life, of which shopping is one. But this Government has decided that you have to rearrange your life. You cannot have the current shopping arrangements. It does not want people in the ACT to be given any choice about when and where they shop. The other contradictory thing about this proposal for shopping hours relates to jobs. There has been enough said about the jobs that we have lost in the retail industry. But what about the other particular industries in this town? We are getting rid of public servants. They are no longer seen as useful and acceptable members of the work force. Let us just chuck them out and make them redundant.

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