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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2428 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

I was particularly alarmed by the suggestion of the Greens that their reason for supporting the Bill was that large supermarkets in town centres get cheap rents and do not use local suppliers. Mr Speaker, much as I regret to say it, neither of these issues will be affected one jot by this Bill. These supermarkets are still going to have cheap rents, and they are still not going to buy from local suppliers. Last time I was in my suburban shop there were plenty of products there that I do not think were produced in the local region. There were plenty of products on the shelves which were not even produced in Australia. Let us not get carried away about how suburban shops are the saviours of local producers. I do not think that argument holds any water. I was surprised to hear it raised.

One other issue that I really must touch on is the social costs and benefits of this legislation. My colleague Ms Reilly unsuccessfully sought to get some clarification from the Minister on Tuesday on an issue she mentioned again tonight; that is, the issue of residents who actually live near town centres and for whom town centres are their local shops. Mr Humphries obviously is not one of them, and he does not seem to care that other people are in this position. There are people all over the city who live near town centres and for whom town centres are their local shops. Many of them in my electorate bought properties close to town centres because they wanted the amenity of living close to a town centre with supermarkets which traded 24 hours a day and sold a wide range of products. Mr Humphries has just changed the rules on these people. He does not even care that these people have lost the amenity of the properties that they bought. Mr Humphries simply continues to parrot the line, as Mr Stefaniak did, that they will just have to change. I do not think it is acceptable to tell consumers that they are just going to have to lump it and change. That is what Mr Humphries is telling these people.

One of the myths that have been created around this issue is that the unemployed, sole parents and these sorts of people do not have cars and like to go to their local shop to do their grocery shopping. A more incorrect and more false suggestion than that is hard to imagine. Anybody who has talked to these people for any length of time will know that people who are on pensions cannot afford to pay 12 per cent more for their groceries.

Mrs Carnell: They cannot afford a car either.

MR WHITECROSS: They may not have a car, as Mrs Carnell says, but here are the facts. If you are lucky enough to have a bus route going anywhere near your house after Mr De Domenico has finished with the buses, you get on the bus, you go down to your town centre, you buy your groceries, you get on the bus, you come home, and the supermarket home delivers your groceries. That is what people do. That is what the people in the flats at Lyons do. They do not go to their suburban shop. They go to Woolworths and they get home delivery, because they need the cheapest prices. Every dollar counts. When they buy $100 worth of groceries, they cannot afford to put an extra $12 into the till to satisfy Mr Humphries's dream of burgeoning local shopping strips a la the 1950s and 1960s. They are not going to be the bunnies who are going to prop up this policy. The Government have not produced any evidence to support this legislation.

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