The ACT Government is none the wiser about what to do with suburban supermarkets after two inquiries. One inquiry recommended that market and social forces had resulted in irreversible trends away from the suburban supermarket and that there was not a lot government could do about it. The other inquiry sided with the suburban supermarkets and suggested a range of regulatory measures, particularly regulation of business hours for large shops which would save the local supermarkets from competition and provide a place for people without transport could shop.
The divergent opinions show the inquiry process is often a waste of time and money. The results of an inquiry are more often dependant on the predilections of the inquirer than the state of affairs being inquired into. Inquiries are so often cop-outs by elected governments which are too scared to make decisions.
Before either of these inquiries were launched it was obvious what the issues were and what the views of the various protagonists would be.
The main issue was whether deregulated shopping hours give more benefit to the community than detriment.
The shop-keepers in the small centres want restricted hours in the large centres to reduce competitive pressure so they can keep business, particularly evening business. The less mobile members of the community join cause with them because they want viable local shopping centres to which they can walk for their supplies.
Those who run large supermarkets at large shopping centres want unrestricted hours so they can get best use of their capital investment and attract market share from people who want to do their major household shop outside normal business hours. Those people want the major supermarkets to be open 24 hours because they want access to the range and lower prices available at larger centres, and they are prepared to drive some distance to get this.
It did not need two inquiries to point out these obvious facts. It does, however, require political decisions about what to do with dying suburban shopping centres.
It would be folly for the ACT Government to attempt to turn back the clock and resist societal changes. There are so many two-income families in Canberra that flexible shopping hours are a necessity. It would be unfair to them to deny them the cheap prices that come with economies of scale and around-the-clock use of capital investment in shopping centres. That may result in a change of use for suburban shops. So be it. Shopping is quintessentially a market matter and market forces are best way of getting the best use of resources. The fact that Canberra is having such strife after decades of governmental interference in shopping indicates the folly of it.
There is a problem with dealing with those who are not mobile enough to take advantage of the large centres. That should be met with direct help to them if necessary, rather than indirectly through regulating shopping hours which will unnecessarily disadvantage thousands of Canberra families.
The only worthwhile suggestion to come from these inquiries is to alternate the fortnightly pay period for Federal and ACT public servants to make for more even trade.