Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 September 2017.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:44): I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate our position on the Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill 2017. Put simply, while we will be supporting this bill overall, it is an imperfect bill and we will certainly be entertaining some of the amendments.

The bill comes about because in November 2015 Supreme Court Justice Tim Anderson QC undertook a review of South Australia's liquor licensing laws. Justice Anderson made 129 recommendations and the government has sought to include some of these, in part, in this bill. The Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill does indeed implement a number of those reforms recommended by Justice Anderson, in particular:

introducing a new licensing class system and streamlining liquor licensing categories, removing restrictions on trading hours, entertainment and allowing more flexible trading at events;

enabling councils to set short-term dry zones;

removing restrictions on the sale of liquor on Sundays, Christmas Day, Good Friday, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day;

making various offences under the act expiable to improve their enforcement;

introducing a three-hour liquor break in trade for late-night venues between the hours of 3am and 8am; and

tightening the laws regarding the sale of liquor through the internet or by telephone, known as 'direct sales'.

I note that the LGA has expressed concerns and has communicated those to me in writing—as well as, I am sure, other members of this council—with regard to clause 77 of the bill, which removes a council's right to make submissions when the liquor licence application is advertised. The LGA's argument is that, under the current regime, council provides the liquor licensing authority with a unique and valid insight into the history of a licensed premises, and that expertise is most useful. I also note that the LGA has expressed its disappointment, a disappointment the Greens strongly share, that this has been a missed opportunity to extend small bars' licences across the state and beyond the hipster-proof fence that has been erected around the Adelaide city council region.

I note there will be both government opposition and Greens amendments to the bill, and I look forward to addressing those. I also note that an amendment was made in the other place by the member for Florey. We will take each of those on their merits, but I indicate that we have great concerns, and have certainly appreciated the input from the Music Industry Council and Matt Swayne, their chairperson, about the potential adverse effect that some of the licensing regime changes may have on the live music industry. That council is representative of Music SA, the Australian Hotels Association (SA), local radio station Fresh 92.7, APRA AMCOS, the National Live Music Office, the Adelaide Music Collective, 5/4 Entertainment, Adelaide city council, the Local Government Association of SA, the state government (DSD), Arts SA, the Music Development Office and Musitec.

The Greens have strong concerns about anything that will diminish that part of the sector, and have long fought to protect it. We also express our gratitude to the Late Night Venue Association of South Australia, and in particular to Tim Swaine, the president of that association, for raising their concerns with us, as well as the usual players in this space, such as the AHA (SA) and Clubs SA.

As I said at the outset, this is a bill that has broad support from the Greens, but we are very attracted by the opposition amendments that seek to ameliorate some of what we believe are the more draconian and potentially unintended consequences of the licensing fee changes. We will do that with the view to ensuring that we protect good venues and protect those venues which support live music and provide that really quite vital part of the industry.

The Greens will be prosecuting a case that I put in a private members' bill before this place to extend small bars' licences across the state, and take down that hipster-proof fence that the Attorney has erected around the Adelaide city council through his inaction. When we last debated the major liquor licensing reform in this place we did, of course, see the introduction of a small venues licence that was to be trialled in the CBD—indeed, at that stage not even in North Adelaide—and all we have seen in the years since that has been implemented is it being extended to North Adelaide alone.

Yet, when the speeches were made in support of that bill and when the opportunity was presented, I remember the member for Morphett believing that he was going to have small bars in his electorate at Glenelg, and I remember the then member for Schubert being quite excited that there would be small bars in the Barossa. Quite specifically, neither of those events have come to be, and that is all in the hands of the Attorney through his decision not to make it so. We will take that decision out of the Attorney's hands and put it into legislation where he does not have the discretion to decide whether or not a small bar can be in North Adelaide or in Northfield. We think it should be able to be right across the state and that the entirety of the state should be able to take advantage of those opportunities.

We look forward to a robust committee stage. Given the lateness of the hour and the impending close of proceedings for the week, I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.I. Lucas.