LIQUOR LICENSING (SMALL VENUE LICENCE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (15:59): It is my wish that we now proceed to the committee stage of the bill.

The SPEAKER: You mean your remarks are finished?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: On reflection, Mr Speaker, I thought perhaps I had expounded my views as extensively as I could usefully do.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: Minister.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker—

The CHAIR: Thank you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —not that you are an unfamiliar face in that role.

The CHAIR: No, I have been here once or twice.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I welcome you to that position in an official capacity.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is obviously my wish that we proceed to the committee stage of this legislation. I think most of the points have probably been expounded fairly well in the second reading debate but, as is my usual practice, provided we do not get into very repetitive behaviour, I do not particularly wish to hold the deputy leader to some artificial constraints about particular sections although, if she prefers to deal with the matter in that order, I do not mind. As long as we do not become repetitive, I do not wish to be particularly prescriptive about how we proceed. I do not have anything more to say.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am not sure whether that was a caution or a lecture or—

The CHAIR: I think it was an invitation.

Ms CHAPMAN: —helpful advice or something. The normal process of the parliament is that all members will have an opportunity to put the bill under scrutiny in committee—

The CHAIR: That is what we are going to do.

Ms CHAPMAN: —obviously, under your excellent chairmanship. I am sure you are more than able to ensure that none of the members would breach the rules—namely, to be repetitive. I am sure that the honourable member for Ashford, for example, will have a penetrating and persuasive sort of questioning and contribution to make on the liquor licensing reform in this committee. So, I will take that as some helpful advice from the Attorney, in his extraordinarily generous way—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: The deputy leader has the call.

Ms CHAPMAN: —and I look forward to the committee.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am reminded of an old adage that the member for Elder often repeats, which is never allow a good turn to go unpunished. All I was attempting to say was that I was not requiring everybody to go through it from clause 1 and have a strict limit of three questions and then you have to sit down and wait for somebody else—that was what I was attempting to convey. I am sorry if that was not conveyed in a clear fashion, but that is what I was trying to say—that is all.

The CHAIR: I think that generous offer has been accepted.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Before we go further—this is merely a matter of clarification—are we going to be privileged with a copy of any amendments or are they simply going to be foreshadowed and, as usual, appear for the first time in another place?

The CHAIR: I think the deputy leader will make that known as she gathers her thoughts.

Ms CHAPMAN: Now that I have been provided with the parliamentary copy of the bill, I am disappointed to have that comment made by the Attorney. Obviously, he was not listening attentively to what I had to say in my second reading, namely that there were two areas which were threshold requirements that would need amendment before the opposition would support the bill. I outlined those. I also indicated that that was the resolution of the party room and that they would be introduced in the other place, so he was not listening, or he was deaf or bored or something—I do not know—but I hope that it is clear that I will not be introducing any amendments in this house.

The CHAIR: Thank you.

Ms CHAPMAN: Perhaps we will move to question 1, on the short title, and I will ask some questions in respect of the current position. Can the Attorney tell us how many applications under the special circumstances licences were made during the preceding year? If it is easier to provide this as a calendar year ending 30 June 2012 or to December 2012, I am happy for that to be identified, but how many applications were made?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would be delighted to do that because, as there appears to be no urgency, us not being presented with any amendments at all, there will be an opportunity between now and the other place for that information to be provided. To the extent that I am able to obtain that from the licensing commissioner, I will, and I will provide it to the honourable member.

Ms CHAPMAN: How many special circumstances applications during the same period had been rejected?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Ditto.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of the 113 special circumstances licences that currently exist in the CBD according to the information provided by the Australian Hotels Association, could the Attorney advise whether that is the current number or whether in fact there have been any more since that time?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Ditto.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of the 113, or other amended number, current special circumstances licences, will the Attorney-General report to the committee the nature of the applications of the special circumstances licences and what the application fees were for each?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is the hat trick—ditto.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy for you to answer this on question 1 or later (they are all under the same paragraph) if you wish, Attorney. The Mid-Year Budget Review this year provided a breakdown of the expected costs and revenue from the legislation. The operating revenue for 2012-13, Mid-Year Budget Review, $51,000; for 2013-14, estimate $28,000; 2014-15 estimate $30,000; 2015-16, estimate $19,000; and the operating expenses for 2012-13 are at $40,000. The expenses listed in 2012-13 are said to be from a one-off investment in information technology. The reduction in the revenue is identified, as I understand it, to be due to the fees from the initial licence application as venues are established and changed to ongoing licence fees. Can the Attorney-General confirm that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am not precisely aware of the material from which the honourable member is quoting. I think the best I can do is to say that, if the honourable member provides me with a specific reference in the budget papers to which the honourable member is referring and if any of that is in any way pertinent to this legislation I will attempt to do my best to answer that question.

Ms CHAPMAN: As the Attorney would know, under the new regime under this bill there will only be a limited opportunity for decisions of the commissioner to be reviewable, there will be costs associated with that and there will be a reduction in the circumstances in which there will be an eligible opportunity to have a review by a court. There is also the capacity for the commissioner to refer matters to the court to be decided for applications advertised under section 52 where they involve questions of 'substantial public importance', 'questions of law', or 'other matters that should be in the public interest or in the interests of a party to the proceedings be heard in turn by the court'.

However, the bill, as we read it, proposes to limit the commissioner's referral powers in relation to the small venue licences and by removing a number of those avenues to be reviewed by the court it would also reduce the number of court decisions that can be appealed with leave to the Supreme Court. When you review the Mid-Year Budget Review on these costs that is the breakdown of the expected costs from that legislation. So, we are really just asking for some clarification on that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have noted what is said, but I think the underpinning question is: are the cost estimates contained in the Mid-Year Budget Review in any way reflective of whatever implication there might be from this legislation? I will find out the answer to that question. If the point the honourable member is making is that this legislation in and of itself should not create any additional burden on the courts, that is basically correct.

Ms CHAPMAN: There is also the question of whether there is going to be an adjustment to the revenue or expenditure, which we understand is a one-off cost on the expenditure side, but revenue from the reduced number of application fees as a result of this process, that is what we are asking for.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will do my best to find an answer to that question, if it is capable of being answered.

Ms CHAPMAN: That concludes the questions I have on the bill.

The CHAIR: Does the member for Adelaide have a question?

Ms SANDERSON: Yes, I do.

The CHAIR: Which clause?

Ms SANDERSON: Section 40A(3)(a) just to start with.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As a matter of procedure, can we deal with the clauses up to that point, if nobody has any further issues?

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 7 passed.

Clause 8.

Ms SANDERSON: This is 40A(3)(a) and the number of 120. I was wondering how you calculated that figure and what the reasoning was behind that. Given that we are recommending that it should be 80, I was wondering how you came about the figure.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for her question. As I said, I think, in the second reading debate, this probably is, with respect, the only legitimate question about this, if one is genuinely interested in advancing a more flexible vibrant culture in the city. Here is the thing: first of all, there is no absolute correct number. It is not as if one can sit down using some mathematical formula and come up with the perfect number. What I can tell the honourable member is that after conversations with small venue proponents—and the honourable member needs to be aware that there are quite a variety of people (potentially) in this space—some of them want to operate what looks to all the world like an art gallery but a couple of weekends a month they would like to be able to have drinks in the art gallery as part of a promotion of that gallery, or to have functions, if you like. It is extremely difficult for those people if they have to go through this process of applying for a one-off licence all the time and, on the occasion that they have one of these events, they might want 120 people, for argument's sake, or 150 maybe, in their place, but then for several days or maybe even for weeks they might not have anybody in there.

On the other hand, you have people who would be running what all of us in this room would comprehend to be a small bar, and their objective would be to have people in there maybe five or six evenings a week and perhaps even during the day as well, so they would have quite a different business model. Then there are other people who might be looking at more of a food and wine type combination and they do not really sit properly in any current category.

The best thing I can say to the honourable member is that if you look at what has gone on in Melbourne and you look at the range of venues in Melbourne, some of them look more and more like a restaurant, some of them look more and more like a wine bar but they have pretty well a continuum with people being everything between a full-on restaurant and a full-on wine bar and everything in the middle. That is point number one: these venues are not all of a kind.

Point number two is that we are pretty confident, having spoken to the small venue operators, that if we put numbers like 20, 30, 40 or 50 as the limit, none of them could make a living out of it, with the possible exception that if you had a venue that was so overwhelmingly popular that people would queue up outside the place 12 hours a day, five days a week, and as soon as somebody left, they go back in again, maybe with that sort of turnover—a sort of McDonald's style situation, which one cannot really guarantee would be there all the time—you might be able to keep the show afloat. Clearly at some point the number is too small, so the rest of the thing becomes academic because at that small number, nobody is going to be able to make a profit out of any business model, having regard to the fact that they have to pay rent, they have to pay staff, they have to service whatever loans they have on equipment, etc.

At the other end of the spectrum, I am pretty confident that if we had a number like 200, it would be relatively easy for most people to run a business. Then people like the AHA have said to me, 'Hang on, 200—you're starting to get into the area where some of our small licensed hotels only have 200 people or we have various other venues around the place where they hold another class of licence and so forth and if they're going to get that big, why don't they go for one of these other classes of licence?' In my own mind, it is pretty clear to me that if we were up around 200, it would be too big. If we were around 50, it would be too small for the reasons I have just explained. My initial position in negotiations and discussions with the AHA was, 'Well, let's make it 150,' because that is smaller than the 200 number and it gives them a bit of wiggle room.

The other thing I think I mentioned in the second reading discussion about this, which might help the honourable member, is that this is not a mandatory 120 people. It is a maximum of 120 people so if you or I were applying for one of these licences, we do not have to apply for 120 people. In fact there might be a very good reason why we might only apply for 99, because at 99 people we have yet to trigger the building and planning regulations that require a second toilet, for instance, which then involves additional expenditure in the area. This licence does not relieve—if you will excuse the pun—the licensee of having to provide toilet and other facilities in accordance with the Building Code and other requirements; it does not lift any of those responsibilities from them. It might well be that they are happy to say, 'Leave it at 99, because we don't want to have to click over the 100 and thereby engage all these additional building requirements; we are happy to stick with 99.' It is a matter for them.

The other thing I would stress is that some of these venues are the sorts of venues where, during the winter months, one would expect that all of the clientele would be inside the venue proper. It might be that they are able to accommodate within the venue 80 people, let's say, for argument's sake. However, in the summertime they might have access to a street frontage and it might be that they can lawfully—with all the appropriate council approvals and oversight of this external area—be able to deal with another 10 or 20 people.

What we are saying to those people is, 'Look, it might be that your basic business is 80 people, for argument's sake, but we recognise that in the summer months when, perhaps of a Friday evening or a Saturday evening, on a warm pleasant day—'

Mr Treloar: Much like today.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Much like today—'you might want to have some tables outside, which you have received council approval for and you are properly managing them, and for that period you are going to have an indoor quota, in effect, and an additional external quota, which you won't necessarily have all year round.' What we have tried to do in picking that number of 120 is to give as much flexibility as possible for the operators of these venues to be able to construct the broadest possible range of business models that work for them.

The lower we make that number, the more we compress the options for those business owners. As I have already said, I accept that at a certain point, when you lift that number—and I have picked 200—you are getting right out of the small venue space and they need to play in the same swimming pool as everybody else. I do not have a problem with that. However, when we are talking about these small venues, we want to give them as much flexibility in terms of what they do, and I go back to my art gallery example. We also want to give them flexibility so that, as between summer, autumn and winter and whatnot, they do not have to run up against the barrier of their licence not permitting them to do any more.

I think the honourable member mentioned Leigh Street in her contribution. You would be aware that Leigh Street does have venues which do have external facilities for people to have a drink, or maybe even have a meal and a drink. Personally, I think it is good that we encourage that, where it is safe and appropriate to do so, which of course the council will continue to have a role in determining. That is the reason we have come to that number.

My expectation is that some applicants would want to take advantage of that possibility of 120 and some might not, because in doing that they would give themselves that opportunity, but they would also engage a bunch of building regulations and other things. The question in their head would have to be, 'Is it really worth my while, for the extra 21 people, to have to put another wet area in the establishment?' I cannot recall off the top of my head any other building regulations that are engaged in this, but it is a progressive thing. As you have a bigger and bigger venue, building regs and safety regs start cutting in, and nothing we are proposing here in any way affects that—in no way.

We were designing this to be as flexible as possible within the concept of a small venue, bearing in mind that these venues are not all just bars, they are not all intended to be inside operations and, because they are intended to be partially inside and outside, there are going to be seasonal variations in the mix of clientele and how many people they are going to be able to accommodate.

Ms SANDERSON: Thank you for that explanation. In the interest of fairness, firstly, the AHA recommended that these small venues should not be more than 90, and we know that this legislation, or similar legislation, is working quite successfully with a maximum of 60 in both Queensland and New South Wales, which are substantially bigger states by population than South Australia. So, clearly there is a business model that says this does work.

In relation to size, I already have examples here: Udaberri is 121 capacity, and that has an entertainment venue licence; the Cuckoo Bar has a 121-person capacity under an entertainment license; Elysium Lounge bar has a capacity of 80 people under an entertainment venue licence; and the Supermild Lounge Bar has a special circumstances licence of 115.

I believe what the AHA are getting at is that a licence already exists for capacities of that type that they could be accessing, that other businesses are having to access, pay and go through all the complications that you have said we are streamlining. How is it then fair for these people? If we bring it in at 80, then we are not disadvantaging people who have already gone through the lengthy and costly process.

In regard to streamlining, even perhaps 99 would be a better trigger because, as you have said, after 99 you have to consider building code regulations. If this is in the interest of simplifying and streamlining, maybe 99—even though 80 is my preference—could be a compromise, whereby no-one has to think, 'Oh, I've gone to 100; now I have to get an extra toilet.' It might make it even simpler, which I believe is the intention.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for her remarks. Can I say this: what we have put up in this legislation represents an agreed position between the government and the AHA, with the exception of that number. So, they are not fussing about the rest of it. That is point No. 1.

Point No. 2 is this: the honourable member makes mention of what is going on in Sydney and Queensland in terms of their numbers, and I just caution against comparing apples with oranges. The reason I say that is that, if you have a venue in George Street or Blyth Street in Sydney, your passing traffic pretty well any time of the day past that venue is infinitely greater than the passing traffic you will find in front of any street venue in Adelaide, and that is a function of the size of the city.

We also have a city here where we only have, I think, 20,000-odd people who live in the city. I do not know how I can put this, but if you have 10,000 people a day walking past your hamburger shop and you can only fit 10 people in your hamburger shop you have 10,000 people who, at any given time, will make up that 10; when one person goes out, another one can come in. As long as your shop is full and you are turning over, that is one business model. It is the McDonald's sort of business model.

But, if you do not have that foot traffic—if you do not have that volume flowing past—you have to have a business model which does not operate on the basis that you are going to be full most of the time that you are operating; it is that you are going to be able to absorb fluctuations in the number of people you have in there, and at some times you will be busier than at other times.

The only point I am trying to make is that it is a little unhelpful to compare what goes on in Sydney and Brisbane with what might go on here, but—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Anyway, I do understand the honourable member's point. As I said before, there is no mathematically perfect number here. What I have been trying to do is speak to the young entrepreneurs, whom I know the honourable member does want to see flourish in our city. I have been speaking to these people and asking them, 'How can we encourage you? How can we help you?' and this is the compromised number we have come up with. I understand the honourable member's point, and hopefully I have explained where we are coming from.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can we just go to subparagraph 40A(4) that is proposed? We are still on clause 8. In subparagraph (4), 'prescribed area' means 'the Adelaide central business district; and...any other area declared by the regulations'. Can I just ask the Attorney: is it proposed that Glenelg would be considered in 12 months time?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer to that question is that, assuming this gets through in the form that we hope, I am happy to consider applications from elsewhere after it has had a bit of a settling period, and 12 months doesn't seem a bad idea. As I said earlier, my recollection is the AHA did not want this thing to just be dropped across the state immediately. They said that would be unfair for their members and it would be potentially prejudicial to their members.

As part of my overall attempt to find some resolution with the AHA, I came upon this as a solution. We will start off with the city proper, ignoring North Adelaide, and we would say that this is where we are going to do it, knowing full well even there what the planning regime within the City of Adelaide proper would say—and that is further limited to the CBD and the mixed use areas.

So, what we have done here is say, for the time being, this is in effect a pilot. The pilot is within the CBD and the central mixed use areas. If you wanted to actually more or less map it in your head, it would be not entirely but pretty well Victoria Square north but not including the areas in the extreme eastern end of that or probably the extreme western end either.

It would be largely the southern half of the city if you use Grote Street as the dividing line; largely that part of the city, with the exception of main roads. Obviously on King William Street, Hutt Street or somewhere like that where it already exists is a different kettle of fish, but basically, we are saying that the southern bit of the city proper, by reason of the planning regime, is not really even a place where this is going to have much application.

Now, that was done in order to say that our real priority was making the city vibrant, getting people to come into the city, spend their money in the city, enjoy living in the city, but also to accommodate the concerns the AHA had about whether this would have unintended, unforeseen consequences on their members who might live in country areas.

So, am I open to discussing it further in 12 months, and would Glenelg be on there if people put it on? I am fine with that, but I would not do that without consulting the AHA as well as, for example, Glenelg traders, Holdfast Bay Council, et cetera. I would want to have some idea of what the zoning was in Holdfast Bay in the precinct that people were talking about to get a proper understanding of how close to residential areas this would be landing.

As far as I am concerned, I am not closed off in due course to considering other things, but it would be done in consultation, and I certainly would not be dropping a regulation in here without having spoken to the AHA—if we were talking about Glenelg, for example—talking to Holdfast Bay Council and any other transparently concerned and involved group.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is just that, you see, Attorney, we have got the other area that you might prescribe by regulation. We have got your assurance that you would not be intending to do that in any other area without consulting for what you would identify as reasonable bodies. But we have got the prescribed bodies that must be consulted, which is in the definition above the obligation for you to consult if you look at some other area, and that is the council basically and other people who you think are appropriate.

There is no provision in this act for a review of the pilot, as you describe it, in the Adelaide Central Business District, so without any obligation to review or report to anybody, let alone the parliament, you want to introduce a procedure where you might expand a pilot based on your personal assessment, based on your decision about who you would speak to other than mandating that you talk to the council, all of which you could ignore and of which there would be no accountability back to the parliament.

So, I am asking you why is it that you have decided that, in introducing this pilot, which you say is to make the city more vibrant, to the exclusion of all others for all the reasons you have said, this would not then just be a bill that would apply to the Adelaide Central Business District, which as you say is overlapped with some other things that will actually restrict that north-south-east-west boundary as well, without having a review process and without coming back to the parliament to identify where you would go.

You have heard submissions from other members in the house of the concern of introducing matters in regional areas, this type of activity, some plus, some against, and yet you want us to accept a bill that provides for really you having the exclusive control over expanding it outside of the central district.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for the question. Can I say that when I used the word pilot I did not mean to imply that I consider that this licence classification for the city should be temporary. I do not want this to be something that disappears like Cinderella’s pumpkin at the end of the night. I want this to go on. What I was trying to convey by the word pilot was if this works in the city then I would obviously, were I to be the minister in 12 months’ time, be interested, if there were regional or other metropolitan communities interested in looking at this, in having a conversation with them. That is point one.

Point number two is for me to do anything I would need to be able to produce a regulation and the regulation, as the honourable member knows full well, cannot become law without the approval of the parliament and, in particular the Legislative Council. As the honourable member knows, no particular grouping in this parliament has the majority of members in the Legislative Council. First of all, you have my personal assurance on the record that I would do absolutely nothing without consulting with appropriate people, of whom the AHA would be one. But I do not want to get into a prescriptive listing of all the people I would have to speak to—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We have to because it is a regulation, it has to come back here. Quite frankly, I would encourage the honourable member to speak to the member for Stuart, speak to the member for Morphett and ask them whether they really think it is in the interests of their communities that before they can get a small venue licence for their communities they have to get an act through the parliament. Wouldn’t it be better, from their point of view, if the opposition and the government of the day were comfortable with, for example, Jetty Road in Glenelg having these venues, that government and the opposition could say, okay, we will let the regulation go through.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think to some degree we are at cross purposes. It is not just a question of coming back to the parliament to be able to deal with the matter, as distinct from a regulatory process. The thing that is missing here, even in the legislation that we are doing, is how the thing will even be reviewed. We can have a disagreement about whether it is appropriate that any expanded areas be by statute or by regulation, we can have that dispute, but there is nothing in here, under this bill, that would identify any process of review by anyone. You may ring up the people in your department and say, ‘How do you think it has gone? Have you had any complaints?’ Okay, we have done a review, and they have got somebody else who wants to have it or some other area that does not want to have it.

There is no process. It is one thing to introduce a piece of legislation to identify an area in the City of Adelaide, to enliven the city and all those things; it is another thing to have an outline of a plan of how you would expand that to other districts without there being any review. We can have the dispute about statute or regulation, but there is nothing as to how that review would take place and who would be consulted.

You may not be the Attorney-General in 12 months' time. We have already had one reshuffle in the past few weeks and you might disappear. We might get the old one back—who would ever know. The reality is, though, that we just do not have any assurance about what is going to happen. I would just like to have some understanding about how that is going to work.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have tried to outline what I would do were it to fall to me, that is, convene a meeting. It would probably not be at my initiative; it would be at the initiative of the member for Morphett, the member for Stuart or the member for Schubert, saying, 'Look, my community wants to have an opportunity for this sort of thing.' I would say, 'Okay, let's have a meeting.' I would say to them, 'Please explain what you say the parameters of this thing should be.' I would invite whatever the local council might be, the AHA and, obviously, that member of parliament to discuss the matter with me; hopefully, some commonsense outcome would emerge from that and be put to the parliament in the form of a regulation. That is what I would do.

If the honourable member is not comfortable with that—far be it from me to suggest alternative solutions—it would not particularly perturb me if, prior to any regulation being laid before the parliament, the proposal was at least put before something like the Social Development Committee, for argument's sake. I am entirely relaxed about that.

If that gives comfort, my suggestion would be that the government of the day would formulate whatever proposal it had, it could be laid before that committee and the committee could have the opportunity not to sit on it but, within a reasonable time frame, be given the opportunity to comment and, obviously, that comment would be considered by the parliament in the context of the regulation. I do not have any problem with that; that is entirely reasonable from my point of view, if that is going to solve that problem.

Ms SANDERSON: I have a question on this same section, subsection (4), the Adelaide central business district definition. I have just noticed that the definition of the CBD is considerably different in quite a few different pieces of legislation. I am wondering if there is going to be any attempt to standardise that at all. I note with this $750 car park tax on the RevenueSA website the definition of the CBD includes Hackney Road, War Memorial Drive, and a bit of Port Road. It is quite complicated when referring to the CBD and it has so many different definitions. Not many people have access to the act to get the definition, so this is really just a note that perhaps in future legislation it is standardised.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I understand the point. I think this was designed specifically with the current disposition of venues and likely disposition of venues in mind. For that reason, I think it might be a fraction artificial to import into here some other definition used for another purpose; secondly, anybody who is interested in one of these I am sure will acquaint themselves with the definition and, if they do not acquaint themselves with the definition and they are outside the area, I am sure the commissioner will let them know.

Ms CHAPMAN: Coming back to the definition, is it anticipated, for example, that along the Torrens these type of venues will be set up adjacent to rowing clubs and those sort of structures? Is that what is intended? From the comments made so far, Attorney, I have assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that we are talking about laneways between Hindley Street and areas in Rundle Street, little lanes next to it, during festivals and all sorts of other opportunities that are relatively temporary sort of arrangements. That is what I have assumed it to be—perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps these will be very permanent facilities, but they will be around entertainment precincts. I had not really anticipated that they would be out in the Parklands, yet the new definition seems to include all the Parklands. Is it anticipated that we will have chairs and umbrellas up and so on in Rymill Park?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you for the question. First and foremost, none of these venues can take place without planning approval. So, before we get to anything else, it must be a use capable of being approved under the existing planning regime. In answer to your proposition about, for example, a rowing shed or something, either the council planning regime permits this type of activity there or it does not. If it does permit that activity then these people would be entitled to apply for a licence within the constraints, but if it does not permit it then there is no point in applying because they will not get it.

Secondly, I do not envisage necessarily that all these things will be temporary. Some may be either semipermanent or permanent. To give a couple of examples, in Melbourne there are bridges you can walk underneath and they have a coffee and drink-style place there—a cafe-cum-whatever. It is conceivable that somewhere along the Torrens bank, and not necessarily literally in the Parklands—maybe once the Convention Centre development is complete—there will be an opportunity for a range of outlets to exist on the promenade along the Convention Centre frontage to the river. Some of those might be Louis Vuitton bag shops, for all I know. Some may be restaurants or little bars—I do not know. If the planning regime permits that sort of activity there, then there is no reason they should be excluded.

Another thing that is interesting in Melbourne is that there are places where they have a vacant city block, and it might be that the owner of the block has demolished an existing building and is yet to get the funds ready to build something. There are a number of cases in Melbourne where those owners have leased out that block of land, which is basically just a square in the middle of the city, and people have in effect established a 'temporary' bar on that block of land.

There is one in particular (I cannot think of the name of it) where the bars themselves are converted shipping containers where the front lifts up and the bar is there. Of a night time they are closed and locked down and all the furniture is made from crates and all sorts of things. It is an attractive place, full of people all the time, apparently, but the owners know that they have only a six-month rollover lease, which is why they have not invested big money in the infrastructure. They know that the owner of the property may at any stage say, 'Listen you fellas, in six months I want you out because I'm going to start building.'

One of the possibilities that comes out of this is that, where we have vacant land in the city (it may have been vacant for years and maybe is in between demolishing and building something), some young entrepreneurs may say that they want to make use of that block. The honourable member would remember the Barrio thing that occurred here at the back of Parliament House during the last Festival, which I thought was very successful and people still talk about it. That was what I would call one of these pop-up venues. That venue lasted only for the duration of the festival, as it was always intended to do, but we should not close our minds to the possibility of there being a similar concept, which is more durable than that but never intended to be permanent in the sense of year in year out for the indefinite future. This whole thing is intended to be very flexible within the planning constraints of the city development plan.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am not quite sure what the licence arrangement was for that temporary activity at the back of Parliament House, but obviously there must be some facility through the current licensing act to enable them to have set it up as a pop-up activity. The other one is not just the one-off events or for a fixed period during a festival, for example, or a one-off dinner or activity in a public space but the temporary (or at least part-time during the day or night) activity that can occur more than once, for example, the use of a bridge.

You might even remember, Mr Attorney, that in Sydney quite often they have one-off events, dinners on bridges which are closed at either end. I think we had a law conference one night and there were 500 people on a bridge, and alcohol was served, etc., and it was a one-off event. The Law Society of New South Wales set it up, and they could get some sort of approval to sell liquor as per ticket price on those occasions.

For example, the Torrens Bridge, for which you will have responsibility (or will be pretty soon; we do not know the detail of it yet but no doubt we will see it eventually) will be in this precinct. As I understand it, you can set the rules, ultimately, in relation to that bridge. Is that an area that is going to be available within this precinct under this definition to which you could allow a small venue license to apply and have up to 120 people on it each night after the people have gone home from the stadium as a venue for alcoholic refreshment, or is that to be excluded?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not think it is going to be excluded by legislation but I think it will be excluded by practicality. If, for example, the city council, who I think ultimately will be the custodians of the bridge, were of the view that on a one-off basis they would close the bridge to, in effect, through foot traffic and turn it into a venue, then they could apply to the commissioner for a limited licence and have a one-off something there.

Ms Chapman: You're not talking about continuously.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Look, I am 99.99 per cent sure that this would not be a venue that this type of licence would apply to for no better reason than, as I understand the design, there is no facility for, at least on the bridge structure itself, bar facilities and various other things, and if they were there they would create an impediment to the safe passage of people to and from one side of the bridge to the other. So, I do not see that as being a possibility.

However, as I was trying to explain before, if somebody were to lease a small bolthole in the side of the bottom of the Convention Centre adjacent to the promenade, in effect where the back of that would be a car park or whatever, and that was 20 metres deep and three metres wide and they wanted to run a small venue out of that, then this might be a licence that would be appropriate for them, particularly if they had no capital to get started. This is not going to be of interest to people who have got plenty of money to invest or who are trying to put in large venues. It is just useless for them because it is so constrained.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is another question I was going to ask, and I am happy to do it in this section. Throughout the debate on this, it seems that you want to add an easily accessible, streamlined, cheap process to enable young kids who want to start with something—young kids who do not have much, except a wheelbarrow of cement—to roll up their sleeves and set up the site. They are not big operators, so they are no real threat to the hotel industry or others who have the responsibility. It is just going to be a sort of small group, which is probably why people such as the Hotels Association are saying, 'Hang on a minute! We're talking 120 people. That's more than most of us can fit in our front bars.' This is the same sort of thing. That is why this number is so significant. It just seems incredible.

Even though your dream world is that lots of young chaps and girls will come in and roll up their sleeves and do these things, it will increase your vote and you will be a happy bloke, and the government will be proud of its getting all the young people inspired, what is there to stop Coles or Woolworths moving in and securing all the spots around the city that would be appropriate at a very low fee and taking control of those areas as a means of minimising competition? Absolutely nothing—and they can get it done cheaply, easily and quickly without having to go through any threshold requirements, consultation, conciliation processes, etc.

There is nothing in this bill which says that only young people who are prepared to roll up their sleeves and who are poor get to apply. There are no great gates that are stopping this. If it is some sort of initiative for young people, that sounds great but how is there going to be any capacity to be able to discriminate so that only the young, fit, keen ones can do it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I suppose, on the face of it, that is a fair enough question. I think the answer to it is this: the business model that works for this proposed licence has a couple of implicit ingredients in it.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. I know the member for Adelaide has spoken to these people who hang around Leigh Street and Peel Street and stuff, and I would encourage the member to take you down to have a chat with them. You will find that they have certain things in common. One is that most of them are young, although I am not excluding even elderly people from having a crack at this.

Number two, most of them have a lot of enthusiasm, a lot of energy and not much money. Number three, their business model, because of the those first two reasons, involves them not literally living there but personally living and breathing that business 24 hours a day. These businesses will flourish or fail on the basis of how much commitment those individuals are able to inject into those businesses. They are a highly personal style of business. Coles or Woolworths, which already control 56 per cent of the liquor market in South Australia—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes; exactly. They control places such as hotels, Dan Murphy's, Liquorland; they are all fronts for these characters. Quite frankly, I do not think they have the mind, inclination or capacity to train up young people, inject them with a barrow load of enthusiasm, the capacity never to want to go to sleep and the capacity to want to keep the place clean and to keep all of the drunks out and stick them in there and pay them $25,000 a year for the privilege. I just do not think that is a model. I do not think that we are going to have the big players wanting to get involved in this space because there is just not enough money in it, and there are some other things which we are going to be doing in this space shortly which are reflective of the same philosophy.

Actually, to be perfectly frank with you, the aspiration is basically this: we want to make young people want to stay in Adelaide. We want them to think that Adelaide is an interesting place to be, and we want it to genuinely be an interesting place. We want them to feel like they have an opportunity to prosper here in Adelaide. We want to provide a low entry point for them to get involved in business.

The ones who are really good at this, in five or 10 years, they will not still be running a tiny little hole in the wall somewhere. The ones who are really good at this might, in several years time, be running the best joint in town, which will probably have a hotel licence or whatever licence. These people, we hope, ultimately will be flourishing people, or they might move on to other things and sell it on to another person who is prepared to work 24 hours a day in a business.

The sort of person who is in here has got the work regime of somebody who runs a fish and chip shop or somebody who runs a deli or something. They are chained to the business. If they are not in the business serving, they are out the back peeling potatoes or they are washing the floor or collecting stuff to put in the place. That is the sort of person they are and they do not have the luxury of being able to just put a manager in and sit home and watch television.

This is a low-entry point opportunity for particularly younger people to have a crack at things. There are a number of young people who I have had the privilege of meeting over the last year or two who are drawn more or less to that Leigh Street precinct—not just Leigh Street but Peel Street and other areas. They are really interesting young people. They are enthusiastic, they have got great ideas, they provide tremendous innovation in a whole bunch of areas.

We are looking at ways of actually saying to those people, 'Listen, we are trying to make your lives happen the way you want them to happen. You are going to have to do all the work, but we are going to try to pull some of the obstacles out of your way so that you do not have to be cashed up, you do not have to be mortgaged up to the eyeballs, you do not have to just give your dream away because you have not got a pocketful of money.' That is what it is about.

Ms CHAPMAN: Unfortunately, Mr Attorney, it just sounds to me like it is all a bit of an Alice in Wonderland sort of idea because there is nothing in the bill that I can see that confines the people who are going to operate this to this young, enthusiastic one or two people who are going to do it. There is nothing in here that I can find that says they have to actually serve the alcohol.

You are saying there is a business model, wherever that is—in the Rau school of economics or whatever—that says that this is such a small operation it is really not going to be huge money but it is going to be a way to incubate young people who are enthusiastic into a small business and have an opportunity to grow, but there is nothing in here that says that. This could be taken over by bikies for all we know. This could be taken over by competitors who will stop the space being available to young people and who will minimise the opportunity for others to come in. I mean, hello, let us get into the real world here.

We started this debate earlier today on the purpose of having very strict rules around alcohol sales along with other dangerous substances over which we need to exercise some caution and legislative protection. We set these frameworks up—the drugs, the dynamite—and this is where we started this debate. Alcohol is in that category. The public expects that the parliament will keep the protection. We have a very strict licensing code and licensing rules and a statute with a commissioner in charge.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Which will apply.

Ms CHAPMAN: The code does, as you point out, but there are a whole lot of other structure that will not apply. You say that is because we want to give these young kids a chance to get in there, start their little incubator of enterprise and go on to be the next enthusiastic members of the community and this will keep them from migrating to Queensland and give them an opportunity.

All that sounds wonderful, Attorney, but there is nothing in here which says that is what has to happen—that is my concern. Are you not opening up a whole level, which you would see as low-cost, accessible and all that, but which could be entirely bought up by one or other entity or enterprise that is less favourable in this state and which we would not want to encourage?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Ye of little faith. Can I just say that I know the member for Adelaide gets what I am talking about because the member for Adelaide has spoken to these people. The member for Adelaide knows the people I am talking about. I genuinely make the offer to the deputy leader that I would be happy to accompany her, and the member for Adelaide for that matter, on a little walk during the recess period to come and meet some of these terrific people and just get a sense of their enthusiasm and what they are. They are great young people and all they want is the opportunity to have a go—that is it.

The second thing is none of the basic provisions of the Liquor Licensing Act are removed for these people. So, on the question of whether the Hells Angels can come in and occupy these places, no, they cannot because they do not pass the fit and proper person test which is an absolutely fundamental threshold. If you do not pass that test, you do not get any further; that is it.

I put to the honourable member a moment ago the fish and chip test, which is a very well-known test in business, at least it is to me. I have never been into a fish and chip shop where the person who owns the fish and chip shop, or their wife or their kids, are not serving the fish and chips—never. Coles and Woolworths do not run fish and chip shops.

Mr Pengilly: They would if they could.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And do you know why they cannot? The member for Finniss is as usual penetrating and right on the money: they would if they could. Exactly—they would if they could.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And it has everything to do with economics because, if you are a big outfit like Coles or Woolworths, it does not stack up to work 18 hours a day, seven days a week—peel potatoes, sleep on a bag of potatoes, come home for the two or three hours you get to sleep smelling like fish, have a shower, go back to work and look at fish again, whether it is hot, cold or whatever it is—so that you can clear $300 a week.

That is the point I am trying to make. Fear not about the bikies because I can assure you that if they thought there was money in fish and chips every fish and chip shop would have a Harley Davidson in front of it and everybody in a fish and chip shop would look like a member of ZZ Top, but that is not the case in my observation. Coles and Woollies? Trust me, they are not interested.

Ms Chapman: It's fish and chips; it's not alcohol.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am trying to talk about the business model.

Clause passed.

Clause 9 passed.

Clause 10.

Ms SANDERSON: I refer to section 76(5), the removal of the rights for the council to object. I do feel quite strongly that it is important that the residents have a voice, whether it be directly or via their elected members of council, and I think it is particularly important given that the intention is to start in the city, with the City Council. I know there are already lots of issues. I am contacted at my office regarded licensing issues fairly regularly. I think it is important that the council can speak on their behalf and object where necessary.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the honourable member for her question. The good news—well, I think it is good news—is that I agree with her that the people, through their representatives, should have the opportunity to be heard in relation to these matters, or at least have a role in relation to these matters. Government by the people, for the people, of the people, I am entirely for it, but the fact is that, as we have it here now, that is what happens at two levels.

Level No. 1: the people's representatives, the members of the Adelaide City Council, are the people who make the decisions about the zoning for the city. If they zone something commercial, they are saying something about that area; if they zone it mixed use, they are saying something; if they zone it residential, they are saying something else. That is point No. 1, and that is the first say the people's representatives have.

The second say is that when an application is made for planning approval—and, remember, before you get your licence you have to have planning approval; you cannot do this whether the council likes it or not—the council, the people's representatives, again participates in the decision as to whether or not the planning approval will be granted.

If we introduce another layer in this, all you are doing is introducing red tape. The council already has two cracks at this: No. 1 is in setting the zoning and No. 2 is in approving or not approving the application. At the point of the council not approving the application, the proponent has the opportunity to take that further up to the ERD Court or not, as the case may be. The council has two cracks at it. Why should the council get a third crack at it when its legitimate interest in the matter is planning, not liquor licensing?

They have a planning role, yes. They can say from a planning point of view, 'We do not want things other than residential behaviour here.' Fine. They have two goes in the process. They do not need, then, to come in and interfere with a completely separate question: now that the planning system says that you can have a licensed club, or you can have a licensed venue, we invite you the council to come back and tell the liquor licensing commissioner what you have already told him by saying yes. It is unnecessary, it is red tape, it is overlaying a decision-making process with a decision-making process that has already involved the council twice. That is my objection to changing that.

Ms SANDERSON: Just confirming in that case then, if a cafe opens up in Prospect and then it suddenly decides that it wants to serve alcohol, I believe in that case the council does have a third opportunity to state their case as to whether they want alcohol served in that venue. So I believe that the planning approval actually is just about the venue but not about what goes on within the venue, so the council might approve something being there in general but they might not agree with alcohol being served. The residents might be happy to have a cafe but not a late night venue that serves alcohol.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is a good question. I think the answer to that question gets back to what the development plan says and a change in use. If the move from a sandwich bar to a licensed venue constitutes a change in use for the purposes of council then that requires a new application. If it is within the existing use, then I guess that the situation would be that it is a matter for the liquor licensing commissioner but, even in that circumstance, there is nothing to prevent the council from making a submission. Even though I think that they have already had two bites of the cherry before we get to here, this model does not say that they cannot make a contribution. They are entitled, as anyone else is, to make a submission, which needs to be taken into consideration and the commissioner must have regard to those submissions.

Ms SANDERSON: Is that the same regard that was also paid to the Mount Barker residents who put in submissions against the DPA? Is it at that level? Do they actually have to respond and make changes, or do they just have to read it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You were doing so well. We treated each other with courtesy, and we had been behaving in a very positive fashion.

Ms SANDERSON: I am just sceptical about whether the submissions would be listened to. If it is mandated, as it was previously, then they have to be listened to, whereas if it is a submission they are easily not listened to.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will take that as being genuine and not intended to have any spin on it and be annoying. This has got nothing to do with Mount Barker. This is to do—

Mr Goldsworthy: It's parallel.

The CHAIR: Member for Kavel.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Oh goodness me, we've enlivened him. Look out; everyone get ready.

Mr Goldsworthy: Now you are being—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I did not cast the first stone and I am attempting not to throw one back. No, it is not like Mount Barker.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (11 to 13) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.