Bills

Local Government (Mobile Food Vendors) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 August 2016.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:00): I confirm that I will be the lead speaker on the legislation. I was wondering if the member for Kaurna was going to sit down at the front? It is just a suggestion.

Mr Picton interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: You never know. The Local Government (Mobile Food Vendors) Amendment Bill was introduced by the member for Kaurna on 4 August. The member was quite generous in providing me with a briefing opportunity six or seven days after that. At that stage, no regulations were available, but we talked through the three or so pages that were in the legislation.

I put on the record that the member reiterated that the objective of the bill is to ensure that food truck operators have the opportunity to start their businesses and reach consumers without first having to tackle a barrier of inconsistent and burdensome regulatory settings. The next statement will lead into that, but I must say that the Liberal Party has considered this legislation very carefully. We have had a good debate about it in our room. A variety of submissions have been provided to me; I have read every single word of each of those and I have been in contact with people on a follow-up basis in some of those cases, too.

We have the implications of those submissions, and we have come to the conclusion that the bill just adds more regulation requirements; therefore, the Liberal Party does not support it. I will put some reasons for that, though, and my intention is to ask an extensive series of questions at the committee stage, too. I understand that this is a very serious matter, but it is a decision that has been deliberately reached because we believe very strongly that the current responsibility of local government to be responsible for mobile food vendors has allowed the industry to be successful in areas where people have chosen to do it.

We do not believe that it is necessary to have this level of regulatory burden placed as an overlay, and a specific direction given to local government, when we believe that they have the responsible decision-making capacity already to do so and to work within the guidelines and the policy they set locally. I want to point out that we recognise that food trucks have proved to be a success in the City of Adelaide under the current arrangements, and that has been subject to extensive review in recent years. We believe that there is no justification for any additional regulations to their operation.

We believe that what the member, and by association the government, is proposing is another level of regulation that simply is not necessary and will unfairly disadvantage existing businesses. We have been contacted by those, and by those who represent them, and I can put on the record, for example, that the restaurant and catering association pointed out in their June discussion paper, which was in response to the initial discussion paper put out by the government, that the number of people employed in South Australia in cafes, in restaurants and in catering, is 14,900 people. That is a significant number of people who actually work in the area, so I know it is important.

We do not believe that putting another burden of regulation in place is going to help unemployment. Part of the Liberal Party's DNA is to support entrepreneurs. We want mobile food vendors to operate, yes, but we believe the current situation of local government having the policy in place, implementing it fully and whether they deem it to be appropriate is what should remain.

We believe that local councils should be able to control what sort of businesses come into their area. That is why I was a little bit concerned when I read an article in the InDaily that had a direct comment by the member for Kaurna. It said, and I quote:

Essentially, we don't see it's the councils' role to determine how many businesses—or what sort—should be setting up in a particular area.

This is no different. Considering that statement from the member for Kaurna, I look at development plans, where, from a bricks and mortar perspective, land is appropriately zoned for activities to take place. It is a key responsibility for councils and communities to determine where that is. The regulations tell a bit of a different story from the member for Kaurna's. He says that while a permit has to be granted the councils will determine its location based on a variety of issues; and we will talk about that later too. That comment intrigued me, and it was from early August—I do recognise that.

We do not believe that it is necessary for state parliament to have the responsibility to oversee this. I was interested in a question time issue yesterday when the member for Waite talked about economic modelling. I would love to see where the economic modelling exists in this. The member for Waite was rather critical about a statement and policy position that we on this side had formed—

Mr Whetstone: It was the SDA spokesperson.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes—but here I have seen no evidence that supports the economic modelling of where a positive impact can be seen. I want to give a brief description to all members of what the implications of it are, and this is just so that everybody understands what it will do. The legislation itself is relatively short, but there will be some questions in there. The regulations set out the situation of how it is to be conducted, and the regulations are five pages long. The member for Kaurna was good to me when I contacted him about the availability of the regulations, but I was frustrated because they were not available in the first instance. After subsequent contact, they still were not available. They were provided to me a week ago.

Mr Picton: The draft regulations.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The draft regulations, at that stage, were provided to me a week ago. I know the member was still consulting with a variety of groups. He was probably talking to a lot of people who wanted to see the regulations and their implications because that is how the legislation is to be operated and used. They want to know what the impact will be no matter which way you consider it.

I can put to the house that, from the regulations that I have gleaned, councils cannot determine the type of food or the operating hours that are to be put in place for the mobile food vans, other than for special events that are to be held. Each council can conduct a food and safety inspection if it chooses or they can expect an inspection endorsement from another council. The term 'passport' has been used for what will be put in place, whereby an inspection undertaken by another council can be recognised. I have some questions about fees and all that sort of thing and how that is to be conducted in a practical way.

The regulations also provide that fees may not exceed $200 for a monthly permit or $2,000 for a year, for a 12-month permit. Each council can determine their insurance requirements. I have some questions about that. On the basis that the member for Kaurna wants to introduce regulatory controls, in this case there is no suggestion that it is to be a certain minimum or maximum figure or what type of insurance might be required. We will talk about that in the committee stage also.

Councils must ensure that a mobile food vendor does not unduly interfere with vehicles driven on the road, vehicles parked or standing on roads, public transport or cycling infrastructure, or infrastructure designed to give access to roads, footpaths and buildings. I respect that, but my question then becomes: what is the impact of that on the basis that the mobile food vendors are parked on roads? If there is a restriction in place for the length of time that the vehicle can park on that road, does the permit allow that to be voided, and therefore can a mobile food vendor be there longer than the recognised parking requirement for trucks and cars?

Mr Picton interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Kaurna shakes his head, so we will flush that out a bit more also. The next point I make is that ice-cream vendors are not restricted by this. There is a specific inclusion in the regulations that details that.

The next issue is that each council must adopt rules that detail the location of operation and include details on a map of the area and details of the minimum distance between land-based businesses and mobile vendors. I find this interesting. This is obviously an area where the City of Adelaide has been heavily involved in recent years, but I know from some feedback provided to me that came from the City of Prospect, for example, an inner metropolitan area, that they do not have applications for mobile food vendors, and they would like to attract them to come to events that are occurring there.

I use that as an example because, as I understand the regulations, and the member might correct me on this, they require all councils within three months to determine these location rules—I believe they are, member for Kaurna—and the location rules will include the map of the identified road areas and other properties where the mobile food vans are to go. It is interesting that that is a requirement upon all councils to do that work within the next three months when my presumption would be, and I stand to be corrected on this also, if I can use Prospect council as an example, that it has not been an issue because there have not been applicants for it. I would be interested in the member for Kaurna's feedback on the implications of that and, on the basis the legislation does pass this house which no doubt it will depending on what occurs in the other place, how that is going to work.

The next point I make is that the council must comply with the requirements gazetted by the minister. I did pick up this point. This is in the regulations. I asked the member for Kaurna, on the basis that it is a requirement of the minister, whether it is considered to be a regulation that is disallowable. The member for Kaurna indicated to me that he believed that it was, but no doubt he will put it on the record today when I ask questions about what the case is on that.

Councils must determine all areas, not just roads, that mobile vans can operate in. I understand that also because there are large open spaces that communities use, that are an obvious opportunity for an event to be held or for community activities where there is a chance for this to occur, so it is an obvious inclusion.

Another point that is made in the regulations is that, if a council deems that a mobile van will unduly obstruct the use of public roads, it is not required to grant a permit, but in those words being included there are no suggestions of a practical application of how that might work, so I am interested in an example from the member for Kaurna. Is that size-based? I presume it must be because the regulations already talk about not obstructing other infrastructure associated with it, so it must be a dimension issue, I presume, but I would like some details.

The regulations also say that a council can cancel a permit, and that would be for a breach of one of the conditions attached to the permit or potentially also from a food inspection. The regulations also go to the fact that there is a maximum period in which you cannot apply for another permit. I believe it is six months. The member will confirm that. Also, there is a requirement where a mobile food vendor operates in multiple areas for them to advise the other councils of the fact that their permit has been cancelled by one.

If I extend that to the passport system, and therefore the potential for an application of particularly food health inspection across all areas, does that mean that it is a self-regulating requirement or is it going to the suggestion that there might be the establishment of some form of central register where each individual who might hold multiple permits, and this is particularly relevant to them, goes onto there and is flagged so that those other council areas where the permit is held are aware of it also? In a practical way, I would be interested in how, from self-regulation, as it appears to me in my review of the regulations, that will work. I want some clarification on that too.

While the Liberal Party has taken a position against this because we believe it is an additional regulatory burden, we are quite serious in ensuring that, on the basis of it passing this place, we have explanations in a practical way as to how it works and that there is an opportunity for a review of amendments. The challenge for that is the legislation where the amendments are, and I would say yes to that. The regulations are the key thing, so I hope there is an opportunity in my discussions with the member for Kaurna to talk about that and for him to consider that, where something is a valid issue, it is going to be taken up too.

I respect that this is an issue the member for Kaurna has been pursuing for some time. There was a considerable level of media interest in the short term after the announcement was made on the position on that issue. It is a position the Liberal Party has debated rather seriously—and I want to reinforce that—and we have listened to a variety of opinions. I have read the emails and I have had personal conversations with people. We very seriously respect that entrepreneurialism has to be promoted within South Australia.

We want those who have drive and initiative to try, and to try to be successful, but I do not believe, and the Liberal Party does not believe, that this system will fix that. I think that it can be fixed locally; I do truly believe that. The member has put in place a system whereby the councils have to do it. There are rather broad situations about the terms and conditions they can determine on that, but there is a requirement that they have to do it and the activities that come from that. That is where we believe there is a flaw.

I look forward to the debate on this. I know that a variety of other members will probably be looking to speak on this from both sides. There are those who will take positions very strongly indeed about the relativeness of that. You have probably had conversations with people who disagreed with it and those who agreed with it very strongly, and I can assure the member for Kaurna that I have had those conversations also. Politics involves ensuring that you get good outcomes.

We have tried to look where we believe that the current framework, where local government is able to determine via policies, via negotiation with those who propose issues, via considering the impact upon existing business holders, via considering what the needs of their communities are, provides a forum where it can still work. That is what I want it to be. I want mobile food vendors to have the opportunity, and that is why my demand in the Liberal Party in not supporting this legislation is still to ensure that councils actually do the serious work that is required because I want this responsibility to remain with them. With those few words, I look forward to the ongoing debate.