The ACT Government and the ACT Greens should not take much credit from the fact that the National Competition Council let them off the hook over their disgracefully hypocritical decision to re-regulate shopping hours. The Liberals and Greens joined forces in the Assembly to get the legislation through and it has now been gazetted to come in to force from September 9. It will mean an end to supermarket shopping after 7pm at the big malls.
The Government is hypocritical because the Liberals say they stand for free enterprise and a level playing field. The Greens are hypocritical because they say they stand for employment and opportunity for young people.
Fortunately, the law has a two-year sunset arrangement and by then, the Government might see sense. Further, it is fortunate that the move will not cost the ACT millions of federal dollars in “”competition compensation” as asserted by the Opposition, though the possibility was there and it was as well to have the matter tested before it was put into effect.
The competition council’s approval should not be seen as a tick of approval, but rather proof that other states and territories have too much regulation of shopping hours so that the ACT’s rules look free by comparison. The real point is that the ACT has taken a step backwards to lessen competition.
Worse than that, the decision will mean the loss of many jobs, especially among young people and that shoppers will be badly inconvenienced, especially those where both parents are working. It will not help the suburban shopping centres one jot. This law is bad economically and bad socially. Suburban shopping centres will have ultimately have to come to terms with changing work, leisure and demographic patterns. Government interference can at best be a short-term prop or needlessly postpone the pain of structural change.
That structural change needs to take account of what has happened in society over the 30 years or so that the typical suburban shopping centres were built in Canberra. Examples of this abound. The automotive industry has changed. Cars now need fewer, more specialist services, meaning that people are more likely to take them to bigger centres. Electronic banking has lessened the need for suburban bank branches. Families where both parents work want more flexible arrangements. Food packaging arrangements have made the big weekly shop more attractive.
That does not mean that the local shopping centre should die. Far from it. It must adapt. Changes to traffic policing have meant people would prefer to dine and drink at restaurants closer to home. There is more room for mixed outlets that trade in, for example, post-office business, lotteries, dry cleaning, banking, Laundromat and magazines. Or a pharmacy that has a range of add-ons. Some centres might want to specialise with several shops of one genre, like computers, or books or outdoor gear. But centres should still be able to cater for those who rely on public transport.
The ACT Government, to its credit, has launched a competition for ideas to improve Canberra’s 74 suburban shopping centres. It should generate some worthwhile proposals. These should go beyond just the layout, but also look at the way shops are tenanted and the range of goods and services they can provide.
The emphasis should be on flexibility. It would be counter-productive to repeat the errors of inflexibility in the past. Further, new arrangements should provide maximum market freedom.