Bills

Liquor Licensing (Entertainment on Licensed Premises) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (15:46): As I mention this morning, on this side of the chamber we speak in favour of the Liquor Licensing (Entertainment on Licensed Premises) Amendment Bill. You recall that this morning I gave the house a bit of background into the industry, when I drew the house's attention to some figures of recent times and how, in terms of live performance industry output by state and territory between the years 2008 and 2012, South Australia has gone backwards.

One of the main reasons that South Australia has gone backwards in this regard, the industry says, is the overburdensome regulation that is stifling this part of the music industry. The sale or supply and consumption of liquor is obviously regulated by the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, and section 105(1), particularly, requires a licensee to apply to the licensing authority for consent if they wish to provide entertainment in the licensed premises or, in fact, in any area adjacent to that licensed premise.

The Music Industry Council (and I will talk about their submission in a moment) notes that this provision is the most onerous and the biggest barrier to the industry—that is, the live music industry—in South Australia. They also point out that in fact this restriction does not apply in any other state in Australia and does not apply to any other forms of entertainment out there, and obviously there are many other forms of music, such as recorded music, for example.

The bill aims to draw a balance between cutting red tape and making it easier for a licensed premise to host live music. I made mention of the fact that live music is certainly an area and a component of the identity of a community. As I mentioned, I have three local councils in my electorate alone, and one of them is the Norwood Payneham and St Peters council, and that council contains, as I said, the highest concentration of licensed premises across the metro Adelaide area. There are many of these council areas just outside the CBD that have quite a high concentration of these kinds of venues.

The bill suggests a number of amendments to the Liquor Licensing Act, but I want to focus on section 105 and the regulations that go with the act. They represent everything that can be improved with respect to our entertainment laws in South Australia. Many stakeholders have said that our liquor licensing laws, on the whole, are riddled with over-regulation and quite ridiculous regulation in some instances and these laws are certainly stifling our entertainment businesses, and it makes no sense that bars and pubs have to comply to simply play music.

The 2014 annual report of the Australian Hotels Association criticised these liquor and entertainment licensing restrictions, and this morning I made mention of their submission in regard to this particular amendment. In the past, they have called the regulation by this government on the liquor and entertainment licensing regime draconian and nonsensical. What I think we should be doing in South Australia is taking our lead from the previous Victorian government and the east coast of Australia where legislation has been enacted to give more freedom to entertainment venues to attract patrons, to attract consumers, because the results there have been stunningly successful.

They have been stunningly successful and very well received and they have, in fact, enhanced their reputation as being the hub of Australian culture. I would like to think that down the track people may think the same thing about South Australia but, at the moment, because of this government and the regulation under this government that is stifling this industry, that is certainly not the case in South Australia.

There is obviously not any one quick fix to the question of how we encourage more live music and the industry to grow in South Australia. This has been acknowledged on several fronts, but also quite recently in the report by Thinker in Residence Martin Elbourne, where it is noted that it takes more than just a regulatory regime: a range of measures are required to promote, to encourage, and to support the live music industry as well as those hosting that industry. It would take a mix of legislation, a mix of planning, a mix of education—a wide range of levers that need to be pulling and pushing in the same direction.

The Music Industry Council of South Australia recently made a series of recommendations to the state government in their submission in regard to this bill. The Music Industry Council is quite a reputable body, and I note that they are a newly formed leading music industry advisory body. I believe the MIC was established in 2014, and they have many recommendations which I think the government should certainly take note of. It is comprised of several members, including venues, performers, agents and producers, as well as representatives from the different tiers of government. Members include groups such as MusicSA, the Australian Hotels Association, local radio Fresh 92.7, state government, Arts SA, 5/4 Entertainment, Musitec, APRA, Adelaide Music Collective, Adelaide City Council and The Jam Room.

Following the establishment of the Music Industry Council, its members identified a range of low-hanging fruit, if you like—a range of recommendations—and they say that, if some of these recommendations were actually put in place, put into law, then what you would see is a great enhancement of the live music scene in South Australia. If the government is serious about vibrancy in the city, if they are serious about the live music industry, then they will certainly put forward some of these recommendations.

They note that the industry is certainly fiercely competitive. We all know that the live music industry is subject to many macroeconomic issues but also technology issues, which have contributed, perhaps, to declines in rates of pay in this industry relative to past decades. However, that is not an excuse. As I outlined this morning, we see states where growth is occurring and where the live music scene is flourishing. Therefore, this government cannot blame technology and it cannot blame macroeconomic factors. What it can do is work on the factors that it can control. It can and does have the opportunity to listen to stakeholders and the people who know best, the people at the coalface—the musicians, the stakeholders—and remove burdensome legislation and regulation which is stifling the industry.

Some previous commentators have blamed a lack of venues. Some people have also said that there is not enough talent. I do not take that view, but there are a number of common themes that tend to emerge that the government needs to take note of. Firstly, hotels, pubs, clubs and nightclubs continue to host overwhelmingly the majority of live music gigs in this state, and therefore they should listen to these stakeholders. Secondly, it is quite clear that the onerous liquor licence and entertainment consent requirements actively discourage or prevent venues from engaging live musicians and also from expanding their current offerings.

Thirdly, as they identify, there are complicated and potentially very expensive building and zoning requirements that also have the potential to discourage venues from starting up to provide live music. These add up over time and across the state. They also note that there are high additional compliance costs of venues to support live music, including WorkCover. There is also a lack of information for both venues and musicians as to how to engage musicians or even get a gig in the first place.

The MIC makes five main recommendations to enhance live music in South Australia. The first one, as has been mentioned, is to remove the requirement for separate entertainment consent on all liquor licences. This has been identified as the biggest barrier. The requirement for liquor licensees to obtain different consent to provide any kind of entertainment is obviously somewhat onerous and it discourages live music of any type. It has been raised time and time again by this sector as the biggest barrier currently facing the live music sector in South Australia. This morning I alluded to the submission of the AHA, who said a similar thing.

There are many examples of entertainment consent conditions that are onerous and Draconian especially upon premises that have held liquor licences for many years, in some cases decades, which were in business prior to the recent developments and changes. Improvement in this area by the MIC is a very high priority.

Another point of contention and another position where the MIC is quite critical of the government is where they say that in this current climate, where we are today and beyond where digital and recorded entertainment provides competition for live acts, retention of entertainment consent provisions after midnight will further expose the government's policy to mounting consistency challenges and continue to disadvantage South Australian musicians in comparison to their counterparts in other states of Australia.

The live music industry, musicians trying to get a gig in South Australia, performing in South Australia, are always going to be compared with our neighbours interstate. If a musician has the potential to come to South Australia, questions need to be asked. If it is more onerous to play a gig here, if it is more expensive because of those regulatory burdens to play in South Australia, if the opportunities per capita are fewer because of the regulation that is stifling, well, South Australia by default becomes a less attractive venue for some of these musicians unless the government gets its act together and takes notice of the industry and actually implements some of these changes that the MIC is suggesting.

The MIC goes on to talk about building code regulations to encourage the uptake of live music. Obviously, the Building Code of Australia defines classes of building use, and there are requirements on a number of fronts, such as fire safety, exits, construction specs, materials and ventilation. In South Australia, many venues have split classifications—class 6 and class 9b. Without talking about the size of a venue, areas which are classified as 9b will always have more onerous requirements with respect to air vents, smoke detectors and also sprinkler systems.

While not disagreeing that large assembly buildings will require safety issues to be considered, as it points out, in small kinds of establishments that do host live music the requirement to have specific and additional compliance costs can be detrimental to live music. Obviously, you always have to strike a balance between safety, but I think that the government should seriously look at where that regulation is over the top.

I note other states in Australia. Have a look at Victoria, have a look at New South Wales, the two states that by far have liberated regulations to free up licensed venues. If you look at those two states, in recent times they have introduced state regulations to free up and liberate licensed venues from some of these onerous requirements.

For example, at the end of 2014 (I think, October) Victoria introduced the Building Amendment (Live Music) Regulations 2014 to amend the building regulations to cater for these sorts of improvements. In both cases, I think that you will find, Deputy Speaker, the result has been a liberation, a freeing up of premises that provide live music from having to comply with provisions that are onerous and unreasonable.

We all understand that you need some regulations, sure, but the point has been made through fact and through weight of evidence and through studies and the money that is actually flowing through the industry in South Australia compared with interstate that we can be doing much better here, and so it is time that the government listened.

Another recommendation the MIC talks about is the issue of external noise attenuation in new buildings and developments. This is perhaps a little more complicated, but the music industry group, the MIC, will continue to advocate for solutions that are workable to these sorts of issues. So, I would encourage the government to look at the submission in regard to this. It is much more complicated than the amendments we are looking at here, but if the government is serious about making South Australia more vibrant, making the city more vibrant, this is an area of law that it certainly needs to improve.

Another interesting recommendation that the MIC talks about relates to minors being able to perform in licensed venues, and this was quite interesting when I came across it. Obviously, having opportunities to perform live is a crucial element in the development of young musicians. Recently, I and perhaps other members in the house, only some weeks ago attended the Catholic music festivals. There are some extraordinary young talented musicians in our community. It is fair to say that a lot of students do not continue their music in a professional manner after their high school and their university and TAFE years, and part of that is perhaps because the opportunities are tough. I have a cousin who is trying to make a go of it. He is trying to crack the music scene. It is a tough scene. It is a very competitive scene and often, unfortunately, very talented people do not get a good run because it is extremely competitive.

One of the things the MIC has brought to the government's attention is that in some jurisdictions minors are able to perform in licensed premises. They make the assertion—and it is quite correct—that having the opportunity to perform in a live environment is imperative as a component in the development of young musicians. If they can give a performance in a live environment, obviously it is imperative for their development and it would teach them so much. With many performance opportunities being presented in licensed premises, we should be providing a clear direction to provide safe guidelines for young artists to perform in these venues. I think that if we were able to do that, we would better support their development.

If there are teachers out there who have young gifted students or parents who perform and are ready to have young family members perform, I think we should give serious consideration to allowing young musicians to perform in licensed premises—as the MIC recommends—obviously with safety measures in place and provided that they are under the direct supervision of an adult. This will certainly increase performance opportunities and enable paid employment.

Precedents exist interstate for these conditions, such as section 123(3) of the New South Wales Liquor Act. However, I note that currently there are restrictions on who can perform in a licensed venue, and it is very hard for a minor to perform even though they are under supervision. I had a look recently and there are a number of very young musicians doing great things worldwide—look at 5 Seconds of Summer, Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift and Meghan Trainor. It was not that long ago that these musicians were under 18. We might have the next Taylor Swift here in Adelaide.

Mr Knoll: It could be my daughter.

Mr TARZIA: It could be the member for Schubert's daughter. Hopefully, she sings better than the member for Schubert.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: Yes, exactly. The point I am making is that we should not preclude our youth from having the opportunity to do the best they can in any employment area. Let's face it, for some of them live music is the future, so why should we preclude them by not allowing them the competitive advantage they have interstate? We should be allowing our young people to exercise and practise their talent and give them every opportunity in life and that includes in this area. I commend the MIC for drawing the house's attention to this, and I am happy to have a conversation with them down the track about this sort of thing.

Another recommendation they talk about is in regard to legislation that addresses the limitations on the temporary occupation of buildings. They note that at the moment the Development Act 1993 does not apply any different criteria for the short-term occupation of a building, and for most in the industry it usually means an expensive, costly, long and frustrating process, with the result often suggesting that people who want perhaps to use a space temporarily do not proceed with an idea even if the building is otherwise abandoned. Especially in Melbourne and Sydney, you see these unoccupied spaces where, before too long, musicians have gone in—

Mr Bell: Or squatters.

Mr TARZIA: No, not squatters. We are not talking about squatters today. People have gone in and made the best of a building that was otherwise vacant, and so there is massive potential here. So, I thank the MIC for their submission. They make a number of valid points and I hope the government, on another day, will consider them.

The LGA also makes a range of suggestions with regard to the draft Liquor Licensing (Entertainment on Licensed Premises) Amendment Bill 2015. They are very supportive of some parts of the bill, however, they have asked for clarification of some other parts. Obviously, the LGA has a strong interest in this matter because, let us face it, it is often local councils that have to come to the rescue when there are issues that present. As a former councillor on a metropolitan council I often came across issues between residents and venues in the planning area.

The LGA correctly points out that the main intention of the bill is to remove the requirement for a licensee to seek consent from the licensing authority for entertainment provided between the hours of 11am and midnight, but entertainment outside of these hours and entertainment of a prescribed kind would still require consent under the Liquor Licensing Act.

I acknowledge that the intent of the bill is to strike a fair balance between reducing red tape but also maintaining adequate regulation, and the LGA supports the intent. I do not think anyone in this chamber would argue with the intent because we all appreciate that we need a sensible, somewhat appropriate, common-sense regulatory framework that does not unreasonably add to the cost of doing business. However, that said, the LGA would like to highlight some of the concerns it has, and makes the point with regard to the proposed changes and the potential for unintended consequences.

Of particular concern to the LGA are the changes being proposed ahead of more significant changes to the law that are likely to be included in the government's upcoming package of planning reforms. The LGA has not taken this bill lightly. It has sought legal advice, provided by Norman Waterhouse Lawyers, a very reputable firm, and I would encourage the government and the Attorney to look at this advice and reflect on the issues the LGA raise, and perhaps we can flesh these out down the track.

They make a number of comments. Firstly, they make some comments with regard to the limitations of relying on existing development plan consent conditions and highlight a concern that the proposed amendments have been based on the assumption that there are existing planning consent conditions in operation that can be relied upon to manage entertainment within licensed premises. Obviously, there are a number of questions to be raised here.

They say it is highly likely (through their advice) that a number of established licensed premises will have either none or inadequate planning conditions imposed under the Development Act, or predecessor legislation, to adequately regulate noise from those premises. It is a very interesting point and I would encourage the Attorney to speak to this point. They have a concern that the proposed removal of certain entertainment conditions under the Liquor Licensing Act may create a legislative void for what is otherwise the proactive management of noise.

With regard to triggers for a development plan consent versus a liquor licence application, they go on to highlight another concern. The LGA says that another limitation of the proposed approach relates to activities that could or would trigger or highlight an application to a planning authority compared to those that would require a new or varied consent from a licensing authority.

They make the point that, usually, an application under the Development Act would be generally triggered by intent to, say, undertake building work or a change in land use. The LGA make the point that there is some doubt in the amendment about whether offering a new type of entertainment (for example, live music or a DJ) or expanding the licensed area would trigger a new development application. I would encourage the Attorney to speak to this.

They go on in regard to noise management. Obviously, noise management is a significant issue. It is probably the most significant issue from a resident point of view when they are residing in an area close to a licensed venue. Noise monitoring and the management of the noise is a substantial issue where there are licensed premises that are situated close to or adjacent to a residential area. Obviously, everyone has the right to the quiet enjoyment of living in an area, and so this is an area that needs to be managed well. We only have one go at this. If we get this wrong, we will be playing catch-up. It will lead to many unpleasant conversations in the community, for all members, not just those who have a border or boundary area in the city.

Councils have advised the LGA that the current framework is working well. The proposed amendments will place, however, the onus on councils to manage noise issues between 11am and midnight. Unfortunately, councils are being misunderstood a lot of the time. I wish the government would listen to councils more often. Because the proposed amendments will place the onus on councils to manage noise issues between 11am and midnight, this will arguably undermine existing partnership approaches and it also may create a resourcing issue for local government, if you work on the assumption that there are adequate planning conditions in place to provide a basis for compliance action.

What I am asking the Attorney to do is provide evidence that an analysis of the potential cost impact on councils, and ultimately communities, has been undertaken. We are yet to see any of that, as the LGA have pointed out. It is obviously suggested and considered that the amendments that are being proposed will reduce proactive noise management. As you cannot get on the front foot and as it will be difficult to proactively manage noise measures, it will inevitably result in a higher number of complaints. So, in the absence of what would be a mechanism to efficiently resolve these issues, it would be unlikely from that point of view that red tape will be reduced in that space, because if you are saving it somewhere, you might be putting more on in other ways to make sure you address the concern.

Getting to the legislation, can I just say that I am here to listen to these stakeholders, and that is the problem with this government. For too long now, they have not listened to the industry. I will go through these figures again. The live music industry output by state and territory is such that, between 2008 and 2012, every single state has gone forward (bar Victoria, because they have come up so fast in recent times), but South Australia has gone backwards 11.5 per cent. The government and the Attorney-General can jump up and down all day long and talk about them creating a vibrant state, this, that and the other, but the fact of the matter is, in terms of economic contribution, South Australia is going backwards, and this government has no economic credential whatsoever when it comes to the live music industry.

Section 105 states that it requires a licensee to apply to the licensing authority for consent, and we on this side of the chamber are listening to the industry. The Music Industry Council are in favour of it—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: People used to listen to you much more when you were on the front bench, but anyway. So, the Music Industry Council are in favour of it, the AHA are in favour of it, and the LGA are in favour of it. I would ask the Attorney-General to consider not only the positive comments that have been made in response to this proposal, but also to reflect upon the criticism of the amendment.

This is an industry for which South Australia is certainly doing a below-par job. We can be doing much better, and it is an area in which we can really kick some goals to better provide a vibrant city where we can also put some economic runs on the board. I will support the bill, we on this side of the chamber support the bill, and I commend it to the house.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (16:21): I also rise to speak in favour of the Liquor Licensing (Entertainment on Licensed Premises) Amendment Bill 2015, and I commend the member for Hartley, as lead speaker for the opposition, on his contribution, his research and his thorough interest in this matter. As I said, this amendment bill is supported by the Liberal Party. It is supported by the Music Industry Council, which provided a key submission and recommendations to the government early this year, as well as the Australian Hotels Association (AHA).

Live music activity in Australia delivers significant benefits to the Australian community. Indeed, live music is the heart and soul of live entertainment in South Australia. It is the heart and soul of many hotels and pubs, including many of our historic hotels and pubs, such as the Governor Hindmarsh Hotel, the Lion Hotel, the Wheatsheaf Hotel, the Norwood Hotel, the Arkaba, the Robin Hood, and the Belair Hotel in my electorate of Davenport (and my local).

National research conducted by the University of Tasmania shows that the live music sector contributed over $15.7 billion to the value of the Australian community in 2014. The report, entitled 'The economic and cultural value of live music in Australia 2014', set out to value the economic, social and cultural contributions of the Australian live music industry. The findings of that report revealed that for every dollar spent on live music, $3 of benefit is returned to the wider community.

It illustrates the significant contribution that the live music industry makes to the economy, and it highlights the importance of live music to the community. I certainly believe it is incumbent on us as leaders and representatives to continue to work to improve and develop the live music sector in Australia through funding, better regulation, and small business support.

In terms of hotels being the heart of live music in this state, I refer to the AHA press release of August this year, where they reported that:

…962 gigs were presented during May 2015 in Adelaide and outer suburbs across 157 venues, with Adelaide city providing the bulk of live music offerings.

It shows that, in May 2015, hotels were the most significant venue type, providing 769 of those gigs across 108 venues, and a total of 80 per cent of all gigs performed in Adelaide, and 69 per cent of all venues being hotels. The heart of this amendment does really go to supporting hotels, so it is a very important amendment and it is certainly one that is well supported.

This bill is an important step in the right direction. We must remove unnecessary regulation, and I welcome any effort to cut red tape, reduce cost of business and encourage the live music industry in South Australia. I encourage the removal of unnecessary regulation across all industries and welcome efforts to reduce red tape.

The current requirements for specific entertainment consent to provide entertainment on the licensed premises is unnecessarily onerous. It is costly and time consuming, and has been a significant barrier to the live music sector in South Australia. This amendment will make it easier for licensed premises to host live music.

For example, restaurants now, under the amendments, could have a guitarist playing in the background without having to seek the consent of the licensing authority to play until midnight. It is incredibly hard to believe that, currently and before this amendment, hopefully, is agreed to by this parliament, if a restaurant anywhere in Adelaide, a private small restaurant, wanted to have an acoustic guitarist playing after 11pm, until midnight—

Mr Knoll interjecting:

Mr DULUK: —one last Khe Sanh—they had to apply for special licensing permission. It is absolutely—

Mr Knoll: UnAustralian.

Mr DULUK: It is unAustralian not to have a last plane out of Sydney and, for that to be played, you need the permission of the government. It is certainly about time.

Mr Treloar: What's new?

Mr DULUK:What's New Pussycat is another one that might be played after 11pm that previously would need approval of the government.

Mr Bell:New York, New York.

Mr DULUK: I love New York, New York. There is another one that under the previous regime would need permission. All the pub classics, all the favourite hits, previously needed permission of the licensing authority for that to happen. I am glad that, in 2015, pubs can have music until midnight without needing extra permission. All venues will now be able to host live music between 11am and midnight at their own discretion.

Experiencing live music enriches people's lives and the government getting out of the way of people enjoying their Saturday night is even better—or Sunday night at the Lion Hotel. Live music adds to the vibrancy of our CBD, suburbs and towns. Live music should not suffer at the hands of nanny staters. A classic case of live music suffering at the hands of the nanny state is that of the Austral Hotel. It was first licensed in 1879 and, no doubt, many of us in this place probably had a few drinks in there during our university time. Of course, there was a big argument where a development was proposed for Rundle Street, and the Austral Hotel had to close its live music venue out the back, a venue which had been providing live music for generations, in compliance for new housing.

It really irks me when people complain about live music in hotels, especially when those licensed premises have been there for many a generation. It is a bit like people moving into the suburb of Hilton in 2015 and complaining about the noise of aeroplanes overhead. If you live near a hotel, especially if you move near to a hotel, you need to expect that there is going to be live music and we should not discriminate against those venues that choose to provide live music.

A significant suite of commercial benefits accrue, of course, from a vibrant and prosperous music industry. Live music dependent enterprises receive a financial return on their investment of capital, labour, energy, material and services. Enterprises that provide live music, such as venue owners and operators of hotels, bars, nightclubs, cafes and restaurants, are huge employers of South Australians in the liquor and hospitality industry. Other businesses also benefit from live music, such as accommodation services, retail trade, road transport and communication services. There is, dare I say, a complex ecosystem of financial and social transactions associated with live music. Getting people out and about and enjoying themselves does and will deliver significant flow-on benefits to, first, the individual and, secondly, broader society. There are social and cultural benefits as well.

A study by Deloitte Access Economics, commissioned by the Victorian government, found that venue-based live music contributed to the state's social and cultural landscape. Live music nurtures creativity by providing scope to perform original music. The opportunity to perform live in music venues plays a critical role in developing music careers and incubating talent, as the member for Hartley touched on in saying that we could develop the next Taylor Swift out of Adelaide. Individuals place high value on the social benefits derived from attendances at live music performances, and these private benefits foster social engagement and connectedness, leading to enhanced community wellbeing.

It is important that we continue to identify opportunities to promote the economic, social and cultural values of live music and foster the South Australian live music industry. Licensed venues are critical to the success of this. Enabling simpler means for entertainment and affording musicians the opportunity to gain experience and exposure is supported by the objects of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997. Section 3(1)(b) says:

to further the interests of the liquor industry and industries with which it is closely associated—such as the live music industry, tourism and the hospitality industry—within the context of appropriate regulation and controls;

The role of live music and entertainment more broadly in providing an active night-time economy, a vibrant city and critical employment opportunities should be paramount. A strong culture in developing musicians is another critical component to fostering a live music industry. It is frustrating and short sighted of this government that it continues to cut programs aimed at developing local talent.

I was frustrated to read that the Primary School String Orchestra and the Secondary School String Symphony, amongst other student ensembles, are under threat from a proposed shake-up of school instrumental music teaching. Cuts to school programs will be another nail in the coffin for the South Australian music education system. VET courses have already been hit, with students unable to enrol for music courses at Noarlunga TAFE, and the University of Adelaide's decision that all its vocational music courses would no longer be offered in 2015 is blamed on declining state government contributions.

We must support the development of local musicians and the creative industries in South Australia. Adelaide's live music scene will suffer with fewer up-and-coming musicians performing around town if we do not nurture grassroots music, and indeed that is beginning at primary school age. The economic, cultural and social benefits of live music to the Australian economy are proven beyond any doubt, and the next step is for this government to invest in its music education and restore South Australia to its stature as the Festival State.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (16:31): I rise today in support of the Liquor Licensing (Entertainment on Licensed Premises) Amendment Bill and I want to talk a bit about some of the issues and some of the things that I think we need to be aware of, and I speak a bit from personal experience. Whilst I was doing my research for this brief contribution, I noticed that in February 2015 minister Gail Gago put out a very good press release on the benefits of this amendment. I guess it does not really surprise me that February was some eight months ago, and we are now finally discussing it in these hallowed chambers, but it does go to the core of one of the issues that I have with this state government and that is the untimely, some would say glacial-speed, responses to issues as they pop up.

Mr Knoll: Tectonic.

Mr BELL: Tectonic would actually be a far better word than glacial—18 February 2015—wow, eight months. That press release champions the need for this reform and how it will be a very positive effect on the entertainment industry:

There will be a much simpler process for venues that want to have live music. Patrons will be happy and South Australia will be even more vibrant.

If it was so important I wonder why eight months has passed before we are here discussing it. Of course, one of the issues that we have, and it is highlighted in the press release, is that $500 is the current cost for this application and, again, it is red tape that could have been cut some, I would say, seven months' ago if it had been brought on earlier.

I owned a 200-seat, three-tiered restaurant, so it had three floors and two entrances. One was obviously from the front on the ground floor. The back entrance wheelchair access came in on the second floor. That was back in 2001 and I was a little bit younger then and I certainly had no dependents in terms of children, but my wife and I decided to buy this restaurant and turn it into a jazz bar down in Mount Gambier.

So 2001, Mount Gambier, let's open a steak and seafood restaurant and a jazz/wine bar on the bottom level. My naivety proved to be a bit of an issue as soon as I came up against the liquor licensing commission and the office of consumer and business affairs because I did not realise at that time that to change a venue licence from a restaurant licence to an entertainment licence took an inordinate amount of time—18 months in total.

These were just some of the processes we had to go through. First of all, you make your application and you think, 'This is going swimmingly. They will get back to us in the near future and we can start rolling in the grand piano, putting in the jazz instruments and looking for talent.' So you make your application. Then, of course, councils need to get involved and puts on whatever restrictions and issues and concerns it has, and then it goes to the wider community for a right of objection and to list their concerns.

This was not in a residential area; it was in a commercial part of Mount Gambier, but I did not realise that the right of complaint also went to competing establishments, which might be hotels, entertainment venues and the like. All of a sudden, we found ourselves in front of the liquor licensing commissioner with about four lawyers on the other side of the table, all representing certain entertainment businesses in Mount Gambier. That was our first trip to Adelaide, but there were to be many more because I can be a little bit determined when I think there is an injustice being delivered.

We went back, and next we had to have a sound engineer's report—and I did not even know what a sound engineer was, to be honest. At the beautiful cost of a couple of thousand dollars back in 2001, we acquired a sound engineer out of Adelaide who came and tested the buildings. To be clear, the bottom level that was half dug into the soil, certainly on the back side, was where the jazz was going to be played and the other two levels were going to be restaurant. I spent a glorious 48 hours with the sound engineer doing tests from 6 o'clock in the morning until lunchtime and 9 o'clock at night to midnight, all recording sounds from various distances away.

Finally, after 18 months we received our entertainment licence with a list of about 11 conditions that made it absolutely impossible to conduct anything other than an acoustic-type environment. We could not have an amplifier of any sort or anything over a three-piece ensemble. What a complete and utter waste of money and time that was. It certainly taught me a good lesson about bureaucracy and the glacial pace at which change will occur.

I am pleased to support this motion that entertainment venues will no longer need to apply for a separate consent between the hours of 11am and midnight, but I would like to see it go further—surprise, surprise. I would like to see the government get out of people's lives, and it is one of my founding principles of small government: light-touch regulation, which I see pop up everywhere, but sometimes the rubber does not hit the road in that area.

I would like to see the complete removal of the need for entertainment consent altogether between the hours of 11am and midnight, except of course when it is prescribed entertainment, and there are special criteria around that.

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

Mr BELL: Yes, this is a circus, not entertainment! I also think this amendment adequately addresses the balance between residents and venues at this time. It does allow any venue to provide entertainment between 11am and midnight whilst also providing residents, via section 106 of the Liquor Licensing Act (Noise—Complaint about noise etc emanating from licensed premises), the opportunity to raise concerns about unreasonable disturbance once it has occurred, rather than it being a pre-emptive ruling that prevents all entertainment.

I would also like to see a strengthening in the act of first occupancy rights, which basically means that, if the entertainment venue has been there for a preceding amount of time and housing then decides to go there, there are some extra rights to the first occupancy ruling. Of course, my big concern, and one we need to watch out for, is this amendment being thwarted by local councils that use planning approvals in the absence of liquor licensing requirements. I think that is something that needs to be monitored as we go through. If that occurs, this amendment will be meaningless if councils apply conditions that these venues just will not be able to adhere to.

Lastly, another part I would love to see addressed at some point is where conditions on an entertainment licence are no longer valid. I can give the example of the Watermark, which used to be Lenny's back in the nineties. Most people from—

Mr Treloar interjecting:

Mr BELL: True—eighties, nineties. There might be some people who remember it a little bit before me. I certainly remember it in the nineties; in fact, it is with shame that I admit that is where I met my current wife and, hopefully, only wife.

Members interjecting:

Mr BELL: You just never know.

Members interjecting:

Mr BELL: Well, first and current and, hopefully, only wife. How did we get off topic so quickly? If you look at some of the conditions around licensed premises, many of them are redundant, but the process to go through to get them removed is costly, timely and prohibitive. I would like to see a sharpening up, an easing of some of those conditions that no longer apply. It can be done in an application to the liquor licensing commissioner to have them removed. The biggest issue at the moment is the fees that are required to get these conditions removed from the licence, and I think that is also a critical aspect.

In conclusion, I support the bill. I would like to see it go further. I think in today's day and age we can make it simpler, easier and more cost effective for those who deal in the trade of liquor and also the licensing reform around it, so I commend it to the house.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (16:43): I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge comrade Gazzola in the gallery listening to this speech. I know that this is an issue quite close to his heart. John Gazzola and I are good ex-CBC boys, having achieved a well-rounded multicultural education, although I think I may be the only Liberal member who ever went to CBC; I think there are a few others from the Labor side—Frank Walsh and a couple of others. It is good to see you here.

In the Barossa, it can be said that we do not necessarily have the ability to cater for all the modern wants and desires of young people, especially in relation to licensed entertainment venues. Although, when I talk to the high school students, the ones who are going to be the newly 18 year olds, it is not necessarily something they want for their community. They are more than happy for nightclubs and things like that to be situated in Adelaide. One of the laments that I do get quite often (and actually the school captains from the Faith Lutheran College are coming in to have a look around the place and for dinner in an hour) is that there is not more in the way of live music entertainment in the Barossa of a Friday and Saturday night.

Indeed, the Barossa is a modern place and is certainly welcoming of international tourists, but apart from the Hungry Jacks do not try to get fed after 8.30, and the only pub in town that is open past midnight is the TH, the Tanunda Hotel, and you get kicked out of there at about 2 o'clock in the morning, I am reliably told—I have never actually been there till that late in the morning; maybe the former member for Schubert has better form on this than me.

Entertainment is extremely important to young people and especially important to young people in my area given the fact that, of the 450 kids who will graduate from year 12 this year from the Barossa, a third of them will leave within six months of completing their SACE certificate. They come to Adelaide for a whole host of reasons and most of it is to do with job opportunities.

Certainly being able to keep them in the Barossa is a good thing, as well as providing live music options later on a Friday and Saturday night (when the rest of us oldies are in bed by 10pm) when they do still feel like being awake and dancing. What is also interesting about this is that, if we are able to open up between 10 and midnight the access for live music acts, it can help to provide a more certain pathway for kids to see a career in music, and the member for Hartley in his expansive contribution talked about potentially uncovering the next Taylor Swift.

In the Barossa we have some really good acts. In fact, last night I was lucky enough to go to the Barossa Regional Awards and listened to the beautiful, soft tones of Cloudy Davey on her acoustic guitar. Interestingly, they shut the venue at 10—maybe Cloudy had something to do with it. Cloudy is a great local musician. My daughter does go to crèche with her kids, but that is by the bye. She is a fantastic local act. We have the Valley Cats (and I mention my mate Steve who comes to talk to me all the time about issues various) who tend to provide entertainment to a lot of the larger functions with a whole range of stuff.

We have got the Barking Ants. We also have Em and Gaz. One half of Em and Gaz is otherwise known as Emily Kroeschel who works at Barossa Valley Cheese, just up the road from my house. She has a beautiful voice and, again, is an emerging young artist who may be able to get more opportunities as a result of this amendment.

This is the second time I have said this this week, but both bills are being ushered through by the Attorney-General, so I hope that this is a trend. He has suggested that this may be a trend, although it does seem that when we introduce new legislation it tends to be more fulsome but when we are looking to subtract legislation it does seem to be little bit more piecemeal, ad hoc and diminutive.

As our leader, the member for Dunstan, is often wont to say, we do not just need to cut red tape, we need wholesale deregulation, and on that I completely agree. My belief is that, if there is red tape where it is not needed, let's get rid of it. This bill goes some way to doing that and getting rid of a superfluous consent process, and that is a good thing.

What I would also say is that, on the other side, we have to realise that we need to balance the need and the amenity of local residents and adequate entertainment for licensed premises is important, but it is also important to recognise the role that councils play. I would like to talk about a situation where a constituent who owns a licensed venue in the Barossa came to me. It is sort of a restaurant-cum-pub.

He came to me and said, 'Stephan, all I was trying to do was have a two piece acoustic set-up on the lawns out the front of my place on a Saturday afternoon.' He said, 'We were going to be done by 6 or 7pm, and really I'm just talking about a couple of microphones and a couple of people with guitars.' But there is a tourism facility on the opposite side of him and the people at the tourism facility objected and objected quite strongly, even though at that tourist facility there is a lot of music and noise that goes on late at night. He was going through the process. He was assured that everything was going swimmingly. In fact, the member for Mount Gambier's story is quite familiar here. He was told everything was okay up until the point it was not okay, and at the point it was not okay it was too late for him to fix anything. Objections had been lodged and his application to extend the licence to include these new conditions was rejected.

I can envisage myself—and I am not a beer drinker—having a nice locally brewed beer from one of the few local breweries that we have in the Barossa on a Sunday afternoon—27° would be ideal, but I will give or take a few degrees either side—sitting there with my wife, with Ruby running around, listening to some nice acoustic music. I think it is something that does not happen in the Barossa that much and something that could add to the local entertainment scene and, again, provide a more diverse set of opportunities for tourists and locals alike.

I bring that story up because—and a number of members have mentioned—in the submission by the AHA it states:

Suburban councils have a significant role to play in supporting music in local precincts and it would be unacceptable if the intention of this Amendment is thwarted by local councils using planning approvals in the absence of liquor licensing requirements.

Can I say that I understand and hear those concerns and am fully supportive. In the event that another constituent with a licensed premises comes to me and says, 'Stephan, I am having trouble getting something like this passed,' I am more than happy to take up the fight, provided, obviously, that there are reasonable circumstances. I am more than happy to take up the fight in order to do this, because we owe it to the younger people in the Barossa and we owe it to the tourists who want to come to the Barossa. In a community where we need to balance the needs of all, common sense should prevail, but certainly we cannot close ourselves off to letting those who are doing so in a responsible manner have the fun that they so seek.

With that, Deputy Speaker, I am very happy to support this bill. It is good for my electorate, it is good for the people of the Murraylands and it is good for the people of the Barossa. I look forward to a number of venues taking advantage of this amendment, and I look forward to hearing the beautiful tones of Em and Gaz later and later into a Saturday night.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am wondering if you will get involved if there is karaoke?

Mr KNOLL: No.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:52): If there is not, there should be, Deputy Speaker. I rise today to make a contribution on this bill which, as has been pointed out, we support. I have picked up on the contributions thus far that there is an innate fondness for live music right across the board throughout the members who have contributed and beyond.

This bill goes a long way to addressing some of the regulation and red tape that live music has been hamstrung by over recent years. It seeks to cut the red tape and make it easier for licensed premises to host live music. The bill amends the act so that venues no longer have to apply for a separate licence to have live music between 11am and midnight. For example, some restaurants could have a guitarist playing in the background without having to seek the consent of the licensing authority, which is the situation at the moment.

Pubs, clubs and restaurants right across this city and across this state currently have to apply for a separate licence, and the details of that are quite onerous and quite direct, so it is looking to remove the provision for that and change the bill. As it is currently, it requires a licensee to apply to the licensing authority for consent to provide entertainment on the licensed premises or, in fact, any area adjacent to that licensed premises.

A lot of consultation has occurred with regard to this. The Music Industry Council, for example, asserts that this provision, that I have just mentioned, is onerous and is, in fact, the biggest barrier to the live music sector in South Australia. We have heard the member for Davenport talk about the significant economic contribution that the live music industry plays right across Australia. I think the number he was talking was around $15 billion per annum, so it is a significant industry.

Of course, there are spin-offs from it. The pubs, clubs, restaurants and hotels that host live music all have a part to play in the bigger entertainment industry. Venues that want to have live music after midnight will still be required to make an application, so that is post midnight, which is fair enough. Licensees will also be required to obtain the consent of the licensing authority if the entertainment is prescribed entertainment as defined in the bill. It is argued in this bill that it will strike an appropriate balance between reducing red tape and maintaining the regulation of entertainment during the hours that noise from licensed premises is most likely to impact on residents, and this is critical, particularly in suburban Adelaide and within our bigger regional country towns where pubs and clubs tend to be intermixed with urban dwellings or residential premises.

The bill is supported by the Music Industry Council, which provided a key submission, and I have already mentioned that, and made recommendations to the government earlier this year. The Australian Hotels Association, of course, is a key player in this and a key host for live music and they are supportive. The LGA has also been consulted. In reading its submission, I see that the Music Industry Council has raised some valid points regarding barriers faced by the live music industry in South Australia, and that includes the current onerous arrangements of applying to the licensing authority for consent.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have already sent for the Attorney.

Mr TRELOAR: Thank you very much. This government talks a lot about a vibrant capital city, but it goes well beyond that, it goes to our larger regional centres and also our smaller country towns which all seek to create a vibrant social life for their residents. The best thing we can do to help with that is to support the live music sector and remove some of the red tape.

The hospitality industry is a big employer in metropolitan South Australia and the regions and some of the best pubs have been mentioned already. I notice the member for Mount Gambier mentioned Lenny's, and many of us here will remember that place, not that I got there very often. It was down at Glenelg, I think, and was a nightclub. It may have even been a disco for a time. The reminiscing is beginning, I think. There are many pubs and clubs, too numerous to mention, so I will not be caught up in that. Although, I will say that a friend and I, being country boys and touring the Eastern States way back in 1983, went to the Bombay Rock on the Gold Coast and saw live music that particular night. The Dead Kennedys were playing. For country boys it was a real eye-opener. They played all their big hits and we had a wonderful night.

There always needs to be a balance between impacting on residents and having a strong live music sector and we believe this bill actually strikes that balance. It has been a long time coming but thankfully we are at a point now where we can reduce the regulation around this. My own children are now out pubbing and clubbing and they talk very fondly about the bands they see, in fact some of their friends play in bands around town and they will often go along and watch them for the evening.

I would like to relate one last personal story in this contribution. I am going to make mention of one of my staff members, Mr Simon Halliwell, who shared with me one day that his mother, way back in the early sixties, was a regular at The Cavern Club.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In Liverpool?

Mr TRELOAR: In Liverpool.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Her name is not Paula, is it?

Mr TRELOAR: No, her name is Brenda, Deputy Speaker, but as a young lady—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And her husband is Paul?

Mr TRELOAR: Paul, you are correct, yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know them. It is a true story.

Mr TRELOAR: You know them, so the Deputy Speaker knows Paul and Brenda Halliwell. Brenda was a regular at The Cavern Club and we all know, of course, who played there in the early sixties.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Beatles, just to help you all.

Mr TRELOAR: It was the Beatles, and thank goodness they were not regulated out of the live music industry because the world would be a significantly different place.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you know where The Cavern Club was, don't you? It wasn't regulated anyway.

Mr TRELOAR: Yes. I just thought I would share that little bit of insight because I think it is a really interesting story. That story goes back 50 years. Live music continues to be an important part of life in Adelaide and South Australia. It is very competitive, it is not easy for people to get a gig, and I really do hope that this legislation will allow more people wanting to play to get a gig and more people wanting to hear to have that opportunity.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (17:00): Thank you very much to all those who have contributed. It has been very helpful. I wish the bill a speedy passage.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (17:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.