LIQUOR LICENSING (ENTERTAINMENT) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:48): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Liquor Licensing Act 1997. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I introduce this bill today which simply removes the definition of 'entertainment' from the Liquor Licensing Act. This is a move that was first called for, as I understand it, by the Raise the Bar campaign, which many members may have received email correspondence from in recent months. I do so because, as that campaign rightly notes, in South Australia if a person performs in person on a licensed premises that is defined as entertainment and regulated, but if you broadcast sport, gamble or have recorded music then that is exempt from the strict, erratic and often archaic entertainment approvals process.

I note that it is something that does not exist across the rest of the country and has recently been addressed in New South Wales, one of the last states to have such archaic laws. In fact, live performance and activity is considered a normal activity in hotels, bars, restaurants, clubs and cafes across the rest of the country but not in South Australia. It beggars belief that we have such old-fashioned liquor licensing laws with regard to entertainment.

It has a particular implication for live music, which is very topical today as we welcome the announcement that we have a live music Thinker in Residence, Mr Martin Elbourne, who comes to us with over 30 years experience in the live music industry, having managed bands of such high calibre as New Order and The Smiths, two personal favourites of mine, and having been involved in the wonderful Glastonbury and WOMAD festivals. All of those achievements of Mr Elbourne go to prove just why live music is such an important part of not only the arts but also our broader culture. It is not only an activity that brings social rewards it also brings financial rewards, and all of those propositions are incredibly financially successful.

I note that Mr Elbourne is looking forward to meeting with venues and players in the industry in South Australia over the next few months. I would also draw Mr Elbourne's attention to the fine work of Ianto Ware in this area, not only in his previous role with Renew Adelaide but also as part of Urtext and then Format and the Format Festival, and also Mr John Wardle who has been instrumental in the Raise the Bar campaign in New South Wales and has had some input here. I thank both of those men for their input into not only this bill but my understanding of this sector.

Yet here in South Australia while we are announcing a live music Thinker in Residence and we are hearing from the government that we are going to see (perhaps) small bar licences introduced in the near future, we have culture cops policing what entertainment there is in licensed premises in this state; that is, police and monitoring time, funded by our government, spent monitoring what happens in terms of entertainment and live music on licensed premises in this state. In many cases that is an incredible waste of public resources and a punitive approach that not only kills creativity but punishes small business and discriminates arbitrarily. Perhaps this act contains provisions around the monitoring of entertainment for all good intentions, but in practice it is being applied very oddly.

I draw members' attention to some conditions that currently exist in liquor licences in our state. The Elephant, near Cinema Place, has a special circumstances licence, No. 51203075. Clause 3 of that particular licence states that any live entertainment provided on the licensed premises shall be appropriate to and compatible with the operation of a themed Irish Bar or British Pub.

The Hon. M. Parnell: To be sure, to be sure.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To be sure, to be sure. Clause 6 goes on to state that the premises shall not be used as a nightclub, discotheque, rock band venue or similar, while clause 13 adds that entertainment shall not include any disc jockey activity.

Cibo Espresso's special circumstances licence (51201950) states that at no time shall there be any blues, heavy metal or grunge bands nor any bands which rely on amplified musical instruments. At Purplez, the special circumstances licence (51204225) states in clause 8 that no live entertainment will be played on a Monday and Tuesday. Clause 9 states that any live entertainment played on a Wednesday will be limited to solo, duets or one and two-piece bands. I am not quite sure how that is different to solo or duets but I will not quibble on that point.

Clause 18 states that the licensee shall always advertise/promote the venue as 'an over 30s venue'. I note the incorrect use of an apostrophe in that clause. The licensee shall not advertise/promote or conduct the premises as a rock band or heavy metal venue. Of course, one would know that if you are over 30 you are probably not really into heavy metal anymore, although there may be exceptions.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Actually I have been quickly corrected by members in this chamber who surprisingly are in the majority over thirty. Foxy's Lady has a special circumstances licence (51201031) which states that there be no musical entertainment on the vessel other than a guitarist/vocalist entertaining without the use of any amplification and background music and that there be no music, amplified sound or other sounds as to cause loud, continuous or repeated noise or so as to cause a nuisance to persons residing within the vicinity of the operation of the vessel or to persons being carried on the vessel.

We have licence conditions in this state which dictate that something must be themed as an Irish bar or British pub in terms of the entertainment that would provide. I defy anyone to say without a skerrick of doubt what exactly that particular type of entertainment could, should or would include. Why do we specifically have a clause about grunge music and not acid jazz or art rock or folk rock? I wonder at what point something becomes grunge. Why is a Monday or a Tuesday any different to a Wednesday, and what happens if you do not have the exact configuration and somebody calls in sick that day? Are you allowed to go on with what you thought was going to be a two-piece band but is now a solo artist?

You might think that I am being facetious raising these issues. However, in 2008 one venue was in fact prosecuted in court for not playing folk music as was defined and specified in its licence. That venue was found guilty of this charge because it was contended that the music it was playing in its venue was not folk music. Again, I would say that given 'folk' means 'people' one could argue that the definition of folk music could be very broad indeed.

Another venue that I am aware of is currently before the courts because its licence specifically precludes any of its live performances from being advertised. You may be surprised to find that a lot of venues have in their licence conditions that they are allowed to provide live performance but have an addition into those conditions in their licence that they are not allowed to advertise that they have live performances.

This particular venue has had issues initially with it not being allowed to have any posters outside its venue or in its window and it is specifically being prosecuted through the courts after the police have monitored its Facebook page for a good four months over the summer break for not overtly advertising its live performances but in fact for saying words to the effect that it had a jazzy fusion of entertainment—not even citing the particular band that was playing or the performers who were playing that they are allowed to have playing there, but just alluding to the fact that there might be some music in that venue while you ate your meal and had a drink.

I think this is ludicrous. I think this is a waste of our state's resources. I would say that they are scarce public resources and they are being wasted on what I have called 'culture cops'. They are indeed being prosecuted. Licensees inform me—and I am sure that they will inform our new Thinker-in-Residence—that when one goes to get a licence and one does wish to engage in entertainment on the premises, those potential licensees, small businesses, come up against what is an archaic bureaucratic system which dictates taste.

I would also note that a television screen greater than two metres by two metres actually falls into the definition of entertainment, but a television screen under two metres by two metres does not. One would say that while in fact that clause about grunge music may have had some relevance (although I would not think it was a valid clause in the first place in the 1990s when Kurt Cobain—

An honourable member: Grunge is not dead.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Grunge is not dead, I am informed, but I am pretty sure that most bands starting out today are not playing grunge. Certainly, live music is an ever evolving form and there are several hundred types of bands, categories and genres listed on the Music SA website alone.

I draw the attention of the government to this particular issue. I thank Raise the Bar for drawing it to my attention. I know that there is overall reform going on in this area, but this particular issue has come up time and time again in public forums, in correspondence and in conversations that I have had as one of the real sticking points. I understand that there is some history about why it exists and that we used to in fact have a cabaret licence many decades ago.

We do have an entertainment venue licence category and I would point out to all members that that will not be affected by this. We are talking about other areas, where licensees provide entertainment but have to obtain entertainment consent. This bill before us would ensure that that entertainment consent was not necessary unless, as is outlined in the bill, that entertainment was proscribed entertainment. The two categories that the bill identifies are if a venue wants to provide adult entertainment or a professional and public boxing or martial arts events, which has been defined in the Boxing and Martial Arts Act 2000.

I would note on that that we do not currently have in any other areas of our legislation a definition of adult entertainment. The parliamentary library informs me that the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 allows for licence conditions to prevent offensive behaviour on the licensed premises, including offensive behaviour by persons providing or intending to provide entertainment, whether live or not, on the licensed premises. This will enable conditions to be imposed on licences to ensure that adult entertainment is not offensive to the general public.

Currently, adult entertainment is somewhat caught by this clause, but what is also caught in the net of the super-trawler culture cops is live entertainment, whether that be bands, disc jockeys (so described in the licensee conditions), or anything else interactive. Providing a social experience seems to be something frowned upon. I would put to members that by having a more interactive environment, and by having small venues and small businesses supported in this state, we will actually see some impact on ameliorating the big venues, the faceless venues, and the violence that is fuelled by alcohol in this state. There are many other solutions to that, of course, but this will address that issue while also supporting a vibrant live music industry.

Since we have had poker machines in this state we have seen a live music fund set up (that has remained static in the over a decade since it was set up) to try to ensure that live music continues to thrive in this state. Yet we have seen the absolute community outpouring of support for a venue like The Jade Monkey which has become iconic on what is a dwindling live music scene in this state.

While there has been assistance to help that venue find new premises, The Jade Monkey is actually crowdsourcing a call for financial support through 'Pozible', because it cannot afford to set up in new premises without extra financial support. This is a venue that has run quite successfully for over nine years, that is very popular and well resourced, but does not choose to make its sole profit out of selling alcohol. It does wish to support a live music industry and, to do so, one needs the equipment and facilities and the other provisions around that.

It chooses not to have poker machines, and it chooses not to undertake a practice of getting people to drink as much as possible as quickly as possible, and that is to be commended. That venue has indicated that it is having difficulties, having been put in a position where it will have to change venues with the onerous requirements that will now be put upon it.

The Jade Monkey is just one of many. As I have said, there is a venue going through the courts because, while the venue is allowed to provide live music, it is not allowed to advertise that it provides live music, not even on its Facebook page—and the police have put many months of work into prosecuting that venue. My bill goes to stopping that practice—I personally think that it a bureaucracy gone mad—and ensuring that venues that are abiding by the law and doing the right thing would not have the culture cops on their back.

The bill continues to ensure that complaint-based mechanisms about noise and excessive noise would remain in the act. Should venues be providing adult entertainment, there would be necessary constraints around that. In my consultations with the AHA, many venues that do provide that sort of entertainment certainly have conditions imposed upon them, in that they have to advertise that that is the case, they have to provide suitable warnings that minors cannot be on the premises and so on, and that would continue as it currently does.

However, as I have said, we would not have our state authorities going around to check whether or not someone was playing folk music, grunge music, heavy metal or otherwise. It is a common-sense bill. It is a small bill, but I think it would have a profound impact. I indicate that there are many members who are working on this issue, and it is far broader than simply this particular clause in this bill, although this bill would have a profound and almost immediate impact should it be implemented. With those words, I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.