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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4363 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

Mr Humphries was saying that extending supermarket trading hours over Christmas is a good idea because workers will be able to get to the shops easily. He does not care about workers getting to the shops at any other time of the year, only at Christmas. He does not care about local supermarkets having competition from the town centre supermarkets at this time of the year, but at any other time of the year he thinks it is a terrible problem.

The Government's position is riddled with inconsistencies, and it is riddled with inconsistencies because it was a poorly thought out, half-baked policy in the first place, a policy foisted on Mr Humphries by his leader, a policy that does not stand up to any scrutiny, and a policy that flies in the face of the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Canberrans. No wonder the Liberal Party convention was so keen to extricate them from this policy. Those at the Liberal Party convention talk to real people out in the community and they know how cross they are about it.

Mr Humphries, in his speech, introduced into the debate a completely new argument about why his restrictions are a good idea. He dropped off the argument about local supermarkets. Now his argument is that restricting town centre supermarket hours helps specialty shops in group centres. He is not talking about local centres anymore; he is talking about specialty shops in group centres getting an increase in passing trade. When people shop at Woolworths, Coles, Supabarn or Jewel at the group centre, some of the specialty shops in the group centre get some passing trade. The local supermarkets in the neighbourhood centres have dropped off the equation. Now it is specialty shops in group centres that Mr Humphries is trying to help, apparently. That is how consistent Mr Humphries's position is on this; that is how riddled with inconsistencies it is.

The Labor Party believes that the best thing the Liberal Party could do would be to put this issue back on ice, for the Government to do the work the National Competition Council has asked them to do to establish that this is not an anti-competitive law, that it is in the best interests of the Canberra community, that it is necessary and is the best way of assisting people in neighbourhood shopping centres. We cannot see any justification for continuing with this law. Mr Humphries's decision to grant exemptions is an admission of the flaws in his own legislation. We will be supporting Mr Osborne's Bill because we would rather see this in legislation than trusting to the whim of the Minister, with his inconsistent policy, which he chops and changes according to his reading of a whim and how to minimise embarrassment for the Government over this ridiculous trading hours law. We want to see it in legislation. We do not want to see it left up to the Minister, and for that reason we will be supporting the Bill.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (11.22): I must admit that I am amazed at the level of hypocrisy we have seen from those opposite this morning.

Mr Whitecross: From the Liberals.

MRS CARNELL: No, not at all. Mr Whitecross just made the point that they want to see this in legislation because they are simply not willing to trust the Minister. Those of us who have been here for any length of time at all know that those opposite had trading hours legislation on their agenda for four or five years. It was on their legislative program, Mr Speaker, and you would remember that. There it was:

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