LIQUOR LICENSING (CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 October 2007. Page 1181.)

Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:40): The opposition supports the bill. It is an overdue remedy to the costly and administrative burdensome situation which has existed whereby applicants were obliged to have both planning and building consent to obtain a certificate of approval from the Liquor and Gaming Commission, which could lead to businesses having additional holding costs while they wait for building consent on top of their planning approval.

In almost all applications for development approval, building consent is dealt with after planning consent is obtained. With the specific reference in this case to licensed premises, the costs involved in obtaining building consent can be significant and take weeks or even months to obtain. The previous unnecessary costs and red tape incurred by licensee applications is highlighted by the wait of six weeks and excessive costs of about $30,000 suffered by the Norwood Football Club in what was known as the Redlegs case.

That was a classic example of overkill associated with the licensed applicant needing both planning and building approval to obtain their certificate of approval from the Commissioner. It was as a result of this case and the recommendations of His Honour Judge Beazley that this amendment bill has, to a certain extent, flowed. It is clear that stakeholders, enforcement and licensing bodies are in agreement with the bill, and the AHA, in particular, is of the view that the amendment is somewhat overdue.

Holders of liquor licences in South Australia, whether they are hotels or other licensed clubs, play a significant economic and social role in the viability of the state as creators of employment opportunity. For example, hotels in South Australia employ 24,000 people. They are contributors to the tax base, promoters of the important tourism industry and contributors to charity. In South Australia, for example, the estimates by the AHA of the dollar amount spent or given to charities by the hotel business community is about $9 million, and, in the case of licensed clubs, they also support many ethnic, social and community organisations.

Of interest, in relation to this particular bill, hotels in South Australia pay about $10 million annually in local government rates and about $32 million in payroll tax. The removal of the unnecessary administrative cost burden will assist in these positive contributions within a framework of responsible liquor and gaming regulation, and the Liberal Party supports this. Importantly, these changes do not obviate the community consultation at planning stage which remains constant, and, if the plan is altered in any significant way, a new certificate of approval would be required.

It is encouraging to see the government moving on the issue of red tape in this area, given its loud promotion of its intention to do away with unnecessary and burdensome compliance rules. No matter how small, in the case of certificates of approval, the burden for applications has been quite large, and the Liberal Party supports any reduction in financial or regulatory imposition which impedes the ability of the business community to operate efficiently for the benefit of the general community, trading revenues, wages and employment.

We see the positive effect of deregulation of the labour market and the cutting of red tape burden for employers promoted in the policy of the federal Liberal government and the subsequent benefits—higher wages, greatest business confidence and the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. The Rann government has been the beneficiary of this reform and it is good to see it following the Howard's government lead.

Of course, when referring to reductions in red tape, the Premier in particular is fond of referring to the 2006 KPMG study of Adelaide's business cost competitiveness, claiming credit for Adelaide's favourable rating compared to Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. However, an examination of the report reveals that the major cost advantages of operating a business in Adelaide are the lower property acquisition (real estate costs)—not really a Rann government red tape initiative—and lower salaries. So, the competitive advantage that we have stems from having more competitive labour costs than Sydney and Melbourne and more affordable real estate than Brisbane. Hopefully, the Competitiveness Council can build on these advantages that South Australia has always had and a strong national economic framework created by the Howard government. Certainly, Business SA has proposed many ways in which it feels the council could initiate real improvements and efficiencies and suggests that their performance should be monitored.

The members of the Competitiveness Council from the private sector are well qualified, although it would be interesting to know how often they meet. However, being chaired by a government minister (currently the Treasurer) raises questions relating to its independence. I think that a representative from the body representing the largest cross-section of business in the state, Business SA, would be worthy of a position on the council, which deals with reducing red tape in business and making the state more attractive to do business in. Perhaps now that the Treasurer is the chairman of that council we may, in fact, see an invitation to Business SA to rejoin.

Perhaps their views might differ from the chairman's and they may be less focused on promoting the strategic plan. While the Premier claims payroll tax relief of $300 million as a reduction in red tape burden, the Auditor-General's Report shows it as increasing by $18 million over the forward estimates. Obviously because of the low threshold and wages growth we will see ever more businesses caught in the payroll tax web, which some would argue is red tape, smoke and mirrors.

Tax reform by the state government is overdue in what has become a changing economy, as we shift from an economy of manufacturing and farm products to that of education, technology and service industries. The opposition would encourage fixing any shortcomings in legislation to smooth out red tape bumps and save business costs, as does this bill. As a party supportive of business, we see the need for balance in the role of government to provide sound regulation that safeguards the community without unfairly penalising business—in this case, those seeking liquor licensing certificates of approval—and help the state to prosper and grow.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (15:47): I rise to support my shadow minister and I congratulate him on his speech to the house and his preparation of the argument for the Liberal Party, which, of course, supports the bill. The objective of this bill is to amend the Liquor Licensing Act to permit a certificate of approval to be granted by the commissioner upon the applicant satisfying the licensing authority that he or she has obtained planning consent as opposed to planning and building consent which is development approval. The bill will remedy the difficulty and, to a certain extent, the overkill associated with a licensed applicant needing both planning and building approval to obtain a certificate of approval. This is basically a streamlining measure which will reduce costs and red tape, and we must all welcome and applaud that.

The AHA, the LGA and the Law Society have all been supportive and have expressed the desire for this bill to be passed. In particular, the AHA is of the view that this amendment is somewhat overdue, and I agree. As a member representing one of our state’s wine regions, I feel compelled to stand to support this legislation and place my comments on the record because we now have some wonderful facilities throughout the state, particularly in the wonderful Barossa Valley in my electorate, and of course it is all built around the wonderful wine industry of which the licensing situation is a critical part.

We have some beautiful new cellar door sales outlets and all of them are licensed, depending on their ownership and who is running them. Also, we have new restaurants and new licensed B&Bs and bistros. If members have not been to the Orlando visitors centre, it is a magnificent facility. I had an interstate visitor last week, and he travels the world looking at wine centres and he said how wonderful it is. It is all built around this wonderful wine industry of which I am a great supporter and ambassador.

I am very pleased that we are streamlining the process, because we all get bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy, and it is extremely frustrating. We need to reduce red tape and the bureaucratic process, and the total approval process—not just this one. It can often mean money to the Treasury. It gets its money earlier because approvals are granted and fees are paid.

I want to applaud legislation like this. I have been coming here for many years, and with some legislation you just wonder why the heck we are doing it. In this instance, I have to say that it is good legislation because it will expedite process, cut the red tape, it will cut the frustration of all the stakeholders involved, and it will encourage more people to get in the entertainment industry, because that is what it is. I again congratulate the shadow minister. The Liberal Party supports the bill.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Volunteers, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister Assisting in Early Childhood Development) (15:51): I thank the opposition for its contribution. Yes, whilst this is a tiny piece of legislation in content, it is big in reducing red tape for those people wanting to obtain a liquor licence, build new premises, or move the licence across. I acknowledge the opposition's appreciation in reducing this red tape and in acknowledging that, when legislation is passed, it is often done with the very best of intentions but it can sometimes have unintended consequences.

I am sure that, in 2000, when the Liberal Party was in power and passed legislation to incorporate both planning and building consent, its aim was not to impose an additional financial burden on business in South Australia. But, that has been the consequence of it, so I appreciate opposition support in fixing this legislation.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.