HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-02-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LIQUOR LICENSING (SMALL VENUE LICENCE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 November 2012.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:16): I rise to speak on the Liquor Licensing (Small Venue Licence) Amendment Bill 2012. Before specifically addressing the bill, may I indicate my congratulations on your unopposed election this morning to the position of Speaker. You have heard from members of our house that they welcome you warmly to this position and look forward to your impartiality. I for one will be cautious not to err and call you 'your honour' or anything else but to act and behave as you would expect. I will be keen to be on my best behaviour and ensure that I am not removed from the house.

I will say though that I will be looking forward to hearing you if you at any time rely on a previous Speaker's pronouncements, particularly the Hon. Peter Lewis who has previously issued his edicts as to what should occur in relation to the conduct of the house. I will be looking forward to seeing on how many occasions you exercise his judgements as precedent for your determinations.

With those few words, I will now address the business before us. It may not have escaped your attention, Mr Speaker, that we will be seeing a lot of each other this week. I think all of the bills this week that the government has determined that we will deal with are matters on which I will be representing the opposition in one way or other.

The SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, may I ask if you are the lead speaker on this bill?

Ms CHAPMAN: Indeed.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

Ms CHAPMAN: As I have just indicated, on all of the bills this week, I will be the opposition spokesperson and lead speaker, so we will have a very cosy relationship by the end of the week, I am sure. Getting back to the liquor licensing legislation, this is legislation which is proposed, of course, to amend our liquor licensing law in the state by providing for a new licence class of establishments where alcohol can be served. Members would be aware that we have legal and regulatory processes that surround important products that, for whatever reason, have been determined historically as needing to have good people in charge of them with very clear rules and it is usually because there is some level of risk with that product.

Sometimes it is guns, so we have very strict gun laws; sometimes it is dynamite and other explosives. Sometimes, of course, it is management of drugs and those who might, under prescription, administer those, whether they are in the medical or pharmaceutical worlds. Of course, alcohol is another product that is provided to the public with strict rules. Ever increasingly, tobacco is another product that comes with strict rules as to who can produce it, sell it, administer it, provide it, etc.

So this is in an exclusive club, and the reason that alcohol is in an exclusive club is that when abused, whether by young or old, it can be dangerous to the person imbibing it, or to those around them. And so the government has taken a continued stance in its lifetime to ensure that we do maintain and, indeed, have extended strict rules in relation to the sale, distribution and retailing of liquor and alcohol generally and, in particular, the licensing around the premises of which people may meet to consume it.

With that, it is surprising to me, and I think to the opposition, that the government would take the view that they need to introduce a new licence class to accommodate what is a proposal to have small boutique bars and laneway restaurants following this movement in Melbourne and Sydney where their state governments have amended laws to introduce a class of licence for small venues. Not that we are following suit in providing this service, but it is surprising to the opposition that it is necessary for the Attorney-General to require that there be a new class, when in South Australia we have a special circumstances licence opportunity, pursuant to section 80 of the act, which allows for the sale of alcohol on or off a licensed premises under a range of specified conditions.

This is a class which exists already and could accommodate a range of venues that this bill claims to encourage. It comes with some extra requirements that the new proposed class of licence would not apply, and it is very interesting to note that the government's determination about why they are proposing to have a new class is because, and I quote:

The costs associated with this process have been identified by small venue owners as a major barrier and disincentive to entry into the market.

What a stunning admission by the government, that they have introduced such a level of regulatory red tape that it now becomes too expensive and too complicated to be able to come in and deal with the types of enterprise that are proposed by the small venue licence in particular.

What is to be noted is that the special circumstances licence which currently exists does require that the licence would only be granted if no other licence category would be adequate and, in that, it requires that of the other 10 classes of liquor licence that you can already apply for, that they are not appropriate, and that they are not designed for the particular activity and the size of the venue and numbers attending, or any of the other classes, and, secondly, that the proposed business would be substantially prejudiced if the applicant's trading rights were limited to those possible under another licence class.

So all you have to do at this stage is to go along to the commissioner and identify that the other 10 categories do not make provision for you, and that you would be prejudiced if you were limited to those—in other words, that you could not get access to that, and you can then be granted a special circumstances licence. Again, the threshold questions are required and those obligations would still be imposed.

So the government's position is that, instead of using that catch-all application provision, they would rather have this new, what they have identified as a streamline process, namely, that the applications would be to the commissioner rather than the court, in some instances; secondly, that the applications for small venue start-ups would have to be advertised; and, thirdly, that the commissioner will not be required to attempt conciliation.

Also, there will be a general right of objection to a licence application that would not have to apply—merely the opportunity for concerned members of the public to make submissions—and the police commissioner will retain the right to intervene and the right to seek a review on the basis of a fit and proper person and public interest.

In essence, they are saying that you can apply to the commissioner; other people could have a say but it does not have to be taken into account. In terms of the threshold obligations that apply to other licences, such as establishing that there is a need within a certain geographical area and a number of other threshold steps, the only person who can actually have any real effect in objecting is the police commissioner.

There is no reason why we would not have the police commissioner in a category of those who could raise objection, but we would say that this is a very unnecessary step and a removal of two important threshold obligations which we think need to be maintained. Firstly, the existing rights of objection to a liquor licence even in this format should be retained. That is a prerequisite to the opposition's support of this bill.

The current grounds of appeal and the right of councils to intervene with representation is another threshold condition that needs to be maintained that we say is a prerequisite to the opposition's support. Finally, the opposition considers that the small venue licence maximum capacity that is currently to be set at 120 in this bill should be restricted to events with a maximum of 80. These are matters on which we have received advice from a number of parties, which we consider have merit and which we consider to be a prerequisite for the support of the opposition in the passage of this bill.

The other matter that I just wish to identify is the extent of the application of this bill. It is proposed that it apply to the Adelaide city centre, and that is noted. This in itself raises some question of preference, but I am assuming here that the government would legitimately argue that the Adelaide city centre has access to a level of immediate attention for security—for example, from the police, if required—and that it is closely accessible for public hospitals and the like. There is some legitimate argument that there is some other infrastructure in respect of emergency service that would support this being confined to the city area.

If on the other hand the government takes the view that it is proposing that this be limited to the city square area as such, as it is consistent with their 'revitalise Adelaide' push, then I think they do need to explain to the public why other regions should not be enjoying that. I think that to identify that by limiting it is actually a circumstance that they know could cause significant problems. They know that it is effectively dropping the standard that they have expected other providers of liquor licensing distribution to uphold, and their way of defending that argument is to say, 'Well, we're only going to introduce it in this very restricted geographical area.'

During the course of consultation on this bill and the provision of briefings, members of the Attorney-General's office provided some advice on the matter. The expectation was that, at least for the next 12 months, there would not be any expansion of the geographical areas to which this bill is to apply but that, if expansion is considered, it would be to the Glenelg area, which is another important precinct in metropolitan Adelaide for tourism, restaurant life and other activities.

The government's argument as to the containment and application of this bill more than likely is to support its preference for the inner metropolitan area. It wants to jump on the bandwagon with what is a popular and publicly-applauded opportunity, namely to have laneway bars to heighten the vibe and activity of the inner city area, following the lead of Melbourne and Victoria, and to try to play catch-up in that regard. They are doing this without even going back and looking at what we already have.

In an attempt to dress this up as some extra important initiative of the government—to jump on the bandwagon with this—they have had to try to create a new expectation and a new accolade to themselves, on the basis that we are going to march into the parliament and create this special new category, rather than rely on the legislation that we already have, which would more than adequately accommodate the activity that is proposed. If the government relied on the existing legislation to deal with it, it would not give them this great fanfare opportunity.

Mr Speaker, you were a former attorney-general and you no doubt know the liquor licensing law backwards. I am sure that even you would agree about the importance of this legislation, which was very carefully managed under your watch—and clearly you did not see the need to rush out and amend it, with the view to moving down this path—but now the new Attorney wants to cover himself in glory and rush to the youth vote, to try to make it look as though they are doing something for them.

I also add that the government has claimed that there has been 'widespread support', to quote the Attorney, for the bill. I do not doubt that, amongst the groups that have been consulted, there has been widespread support, because the groups that were consulted, according to the briefings that we had, were local groups within metropolitan Adelaide who want to get started with the laneway bars and the like. This is an initiative that came from a government entity that is promoting it. They are patting each other on the back in relation to coming up with this idea, although it is quite clear now that in fact this is an initiative that came from interstate and that the government wants to try to cover itself in glory.

When the government states that the Rundle Mall Management Authority, for example, says that this is a good idea, it also identifies that the Rundle Mall Masterplan is to provide the basement and upper level activation, and this is said to be central to the aspirations of such a plan. However, the Rundle Mall Management Authority has argued that small venues should be no more than 80 square metres and have a capacity of one person per square metre—that is 80 people. The authority also suggested that a closing time of 12am, as per the conditions proposed in the bill, is appropriate but that an extension of the trading hours to 2am, which is proposed under clause 40A(1)(b), is not.

The Rundle Mall Management Authority is a significant body and, not surprisingly, is promoting the Adelaide city centre as a place of enjoyment, both in retail therapy and in refreshment; therefore, one would expect that. That is certainly no criticism of them, but let us at least consider what I think are two other major areas of interest.

One area is the people who live in the city. Why should the residents be excluded from having what is currently a right of objection and from being able to proceed though the grounds of appeal process? They also share the city. The last I read was that the government was active in promoting a very big population increase within the City of Adelaide

The opposition has supported and, in fact, advocated for the development of revitalisation and populating Adelaide city, so we are on the same page there. But why should residents be excluded from the opportunity to take part in the process of objection of appeal like any applicant under the Liquor Licensing Act? We think they should not be excluded and, as I say, that is a threshold question that has to be achieved in order to gain our support.

The other area is the groups of people who are already in the business of providing alcohol. The Australian Hotels Association obviously represents a significant number of hoteliers in South Australia. South Australia's metropolitan area, over which this licence is to be applicable as available for application, is one which has an enormous number of hotels.

Hotels have changed over the years; they have always been a public place, they have been a place for accommodation and meals for weary travellers, and they have been a place for the distribution of alcohol. I think, probably more in our lifetime, they have become very important places for the provision of entertainment and restaurant-standard food, etc. Rather than being an accommodation facility or a place for weary workers or travellers, they have actually become very fashionable places with high standards of entertainment and restaurant-standard food.

Hotels have developed in their engagement of the provision of services to the community and, on top of that, have developed in our time, of course, with the advent of poker machines, which the Arnold-Blevins government introduced almost to the exclusive provision within hotels and football clubs. They championed that as an opportunity for them, and so what we see is a level of provision of poker machines in this state which is very much in the venue of hotels, which are of course significant players in relation to this legislation.

I do not think there are any hotels with SP bookmakers in them; certainly, they are an outlet for TABs. I did actually attend a hotel—I think it was the Federation Hotel—at Port Pirie last week, and I can remember attending there at midnight one night to witness the exchange of the licence of the hotel from one owner to another. They specifically sought that the lawyers attend to exchange the documentation at midnight; the relevant practitioners obliged, and I was invited along as an observer. It was interesting, and I only mention it because on that occasion it was pointed out to me that apparently that hotel was the last of the hotels that accommodated the late greats of the SP bookmakers and, in fact, in honour of it, they kept a blackboard in the front bar which identified all of the last bets that were issued for that purpose.

Hotels have changed and are a very important multifunction service provider, not just in accommodation but as a venue for a lot of activities. Not surprisingly, they are leaders in the provision of a number of these services which attract large crowds, which serve alcohol and which have high levels of entertainment. People attend these venues not just to have a quiet or quick drink or to stay overnight night but they also spend many prolonged hours in these venues, and therefore, not surprisingly, these venues have come under scrutiny as places where it is important to provide protection for their users, particularly youth.

Over the last 10 or 15 years, we have seen the development of more and more pieces of legislation to ensure that people do not carry weapons not just in hotels but that there are very strict rules in relation to what anyone can have in their possession within the perimeter of a licensed premises, etc. A huge level of legislation, an even higher level of regulation, mountains of codes of practice and very strict standards have been imposed—and I am not here to argue against the merits of that—and it has all been done with the intention of making these places safe for the people who go into the hotels and for the people who are in their precinct. That is meritorious.

So why is it that the government came to us last year with a view to asking our consent today to lower that standard in a precinct where alcohol is served and larger numbers might aggregate, other than to say, 'We are going to give you a cheap, streamlined option, to have these facilities for large numbers of people. You might have to have some codes of practice obligation, but we are going to let you do that, straight in, without having to go through the expensive and time-consuming process in having to deal with the riffraff of the public and competitors around you.' That is the standard the government is imposing and this bill will not give the protections, which it has in every other bill relating to liquor licensing where it has pursued the mantra of the importance of protecting the patrons and the public, yet in this bill it is not doing so.

Even the Law Society has also accepted that this is a completely unnecessary bill. In relation to these back laneway bars and places of temporary provision of service during major events or carnivals, festivals or anything else, the Law Society has identified that there is appropriate capacity in our current legislation to deal with it. So far from having widespread support, indeed, the significant stakeholders have said it is unnecessary.

I make one other comment in relation to the question of need. As I said, one of the obligations that usually applies to an application for a licence is to be able to satisfy the commissioner or the court that there is need for this particular activity to take place. There is a vacuum in the available services in the community and that there is not enough of a certain thing to be able to provide this activity and, therefore, that they should be granted the licence. It is noted that, according to a study of The National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction from the Flinders University of South Australia, South Australia already has the highest number of liquor licences, per adult, in Australia. It has one licence for every 224 adults. This compares with one per 506 in Queensland and a national average of one per 317.

Not surprisingly, the Hotels Association brings to our attention that the number of liquor licenses under our current regime has already increased, from 1999 to 2011, from 4,081 licences to 5,419 licences and, indeed, that 458 of those are located in the CBD, 113 of which are special circumstance licences.

I do not doubt that they want to bring to the attention of the opposition and to the parliament that, firstly, these are statistics which evidence the fact that we have got a venue on every corner just about in the inner metropolitan area to cater for services. Secondly, that, far from being an oppressive or difficult regime of application, indeed it appears to have been accessible and, in fact, successful by a number of applications to actually increase the number of people who have been granted licences.

So, it cannot be too bad. The system, Mr Speaker, that was there under your watch must be working. It actually applies and has increased the number. So, far from being too hard to get through the threshold, too expensive or anything else, people have and, indeed, we have 458 venues of licensed premises in the city of Adelaide.

So, I do not know how much more accessible it needs to be—that is, the process to apply—but it seems as though we have a law that covers it. It is available, it is working, it is accessible. It may be relatively expensive, but that is a matter which the government could remedy with the stroke of a pen in relation to the costs that they impose to apply. So, with that contribution, I know other members of the opposition wish to speak and they will no doubt raise other issues. The opposition will be preparing amendments to delete clauses 4 to 6 and 9 to 12 and to amend the licence capacity from 120 to 80.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (11:47): Firstly, I commend the government for its intention to create a vibrant city through this small venue licence bill. It certainly is terrific to see so much attention and energy put into the city, because I do agree that we need to keep our young people here and we do need to invigorate the city.

It does remove some of the prohibitive conditions that apply under the current Liquor Licensing Act regarding trading hours, food service and the high cost of the licensing. I also note, as the member for Bragg mentioned, it is a shame that this could not be done through the existing legislation, as it could also be a big advantage for other licence holders at the moment.

I do note that the Attorney-General in his second reading speech said that:

...the costs associated with the process have been identified by small venue owners as a major barrier and a disincentive to entry into the market.

So, whilst this helps new entrants into the market, it would be good to actually have a look at the whole Liquor Licensing Act and see if that could be improved and made less complex, because it is a very complicated act. There are lots of different clauses and situations and it is quite a time consuming thing to go through. So, although I am generally supportive of this initiative, I have two major concerns as stated by our deputy leader just a few minutes ago. The first one is the removal of the general right to objection of section 77 and I quote:

Section 77 of the Liquor Licensing Act provides for the general right of objection by members of the public to be made against an application for a liquor licence on one of the following grounds...

Section 77(5) states that the granting of the licence would be contrary to the act or inconsistent with the objects of the act or that the granting of the licence is unnecessary for the needs of the public in that area or the applicant is of bad reputation or character or is not a fit and proper person or that the position, nature or quality of the premises renders it unsuitable to be licensed or licensed under the category to which the application relates or it would likely result in undue offence, annoyance, disturbance or inconvenience to people who work, worship or reside in the vicinity of the proposed premises or it would likely prejudice the safety or welfare of children attending kindergarten, primary school or secondary school in the vicinity of the premises or the amenity of the local locality would be adversely affected in some other way.

Now as the member for Adelaide, an area where most of these small bar licences, I imagine, would be held—although I do note that it not only mentions the CBD, but it also says any other area declared by the regulations to be a prescribed area—I see that by regulation, the government actually can add in different areas at different times, so currently this relates mostly to the entire area within my electorate of the CBD.

I know already from liquor licensing issues that we are having with Adelaide Oval wanting a 24 hour liquor licence, and there are also lots of bars that are trying to extend their liquor licensing at the moment because of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, I can see the angst that it has throughout the community, particularly the residents, who moved into an area with the belief of one type of lifestyle and amenity and then to find bars and venues opening up around them, that certainly changes the whole feel of where they live. So, I think it is extremely important that the right of general objection is still available and, as stated, that is a deal-breaker for us, it must be available.

It is also a concern that there is the removal for, in clause 77A(2) the standing right of councils to intervene in proceedings before a licensing authority for matters in their area. Section 76 would be removed entirely for small venue licence applications. I believe that the council is the place that most residents would go to because they are known to look after liquor licensing predominantly, and I think it would be a terrible shame to remove the right of residents to go to their elected members and the elected members to then speak on their behalf and actually put forward objections that will affect the residents’ way of life and potentially other businesses that might be effected as well.

The second issue that I have is also regarding the size of the small bars. The current legislation states that it would be for up to 120 patrons. Just to give you some idea of sizes, Udaberri on Leigh Street has a licence for an entertainment venue capacity of 121 people and that covers three different areas; the Cuckoo Bar has a 112 people capacity; the Elysium Lounge bar has an 80 people capacity; Supermild Lounge Bar has a capacity of 115.

The recommendation from the Rundle Mall Management Authority is that this should be restricted to 80 people on the basis of one person per square metre and they believe that 80 square metres is about the right size for a small bar and lounge area in keeping with their vision for Rundle Mall and the city, so that is consistent with other states, and I believe that the Australian Hotels Association also would be happy with 80, which is the Liberal Party’s recommendation. I note that in Queensland and New South Wales, the licensing applies to sizes of only up to 60 and in WA it is 120, so we think that for South Australia 80 would be the appropriate number.

I note that it does state within the proposed bill that concerned public can make a submission; however, they have lost their general right of objection. We know that, from the past, the hundreds and hundreds of submissions opposing the Mount Barker DPA and the St Clair land swap had absolutely no influence whatsoever, so I do not think it is a strong enough way of having the community's thoughts heard. On the basis of the two amendments, one being to bring the licensed venue size to 80 people and also to reinstate the general right to object by residents, community members and the council, I would commend it.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:55): I will make a brief contribution. I support this measure in general terms. I am aware of some amendments being flagged by the opposition, and I would be quite comfortable with what the opposition is suggesting in terms of the number of patrons reduced from 120 to 80 and with more local input and consultation. I will put this bill in a broader context. I think anyone who is honest would admit that in Australia we have a problem in terms of the consumption of alcohol. I am not a wowser, I enjoy a drink, but our society, our culture, has not been able to come to terms with drinking alcohol in a way that is usually and necessarily mature. So some people have this obsession with binge drinking, and I wonder whether it is a carryover from the days when people had to gulp down their beer before 6 o'clock closing.

However, for whatever reason, we still have within our society this urge, this desire, to drink oneself silly. I see this measure here not totally dealing with that issue, but I think it brings an extra level of sophistication into the practice of consuming alcohol. It is probably a bit more akin to what you see sometimes in Europe, where some of the smaller venues offer liquor, often with music, and I see that as a desirable provision under this bill. Live music has suffered badly in recent years, and I think anything which helps to bring that back would be desirable. Whilst my reading of it is that it is not mandatory to have a meal, nevertheless it does provide a clear link between the consumption of alcohol and the consumption of food, and that is a useful connection.

There has been a lot of press in recent times about bad behaviour associated with some areas, some liquor outlets. It is only a minority, but I think it is a serious issue, and it tends to be in certain strips, or development areas, but this focus on small venues will, as I said earlier, lead to a higher level of sophistication in terms of people being able to enjoy a drink, having something to eat, following what is a fairly common practice in places like Paris and elsewhere.

I support this measure. I do not have a problem with the Liberal amendments. I think 80 people is probably quite sufficient; businesses would be viable with that number as a maximum. Having some local input would be good as long as vested interests, who do not want competition, are not given too much weight in any submission. I support this proposal on a slightly qualified basis, but I think it is a step in the right direction in terms of lifting the standards of behaviour in the way we consume alcohol and generally deal with what should be a pleasurable activity but which sometimes leads to antisocial and other problems.

The SPEAKER: The member for Stuart.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:00): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and congratulations on your new role in this house. I will be fairly brief. Certainly, our deputy leader and the member for Adelaide (who is particularly affected by this bill) have already spoken, and spoken very well, and I also appreciate the member for Fisher's comments. In my previous working life I have been a director and a licensee of five different establishments—a long way from Adelaide—with liquor licences, and one of them was a 24 hours a day, seven days a week service. So it is the exact opposite and extreme of what we are talking about here, but it did give me the opportunity to consider all of these issues very seriously.

I guess what I would like to start by saying is that, as the member for Bragg (the Deputy Leader of the Opposition) did say, there are already 10 other categories. There is already ample scope within the existing regulations for these sorts of licences to be granted if and when they are appropriate, so it does seem a bit strange to us that the government is trying to come up with a specific licence category for a specific geography in the state, and it may well be for political purposes that they are pursuing that. However, let us look at the specifics of what they are trying to offer.

I have no objection to nice, small drinking places in the city. I think that would be wonderful. Obviously, due consideration for existing businesses is important, but I think far more important than that is the fact that local residents who were there before these venues were given the opportunity to start up must be heard. I think anyone with an open, sensible mind would consider it fairly draconian to tell a local resident near prospective premises that their voice was not important and that the voice of their council was not important, and that they could not object to one of these new venues opening when there are already 458 licensed premises in Adelaide.

It is not as if we are short of a place to go and drink in the city, if that is what somebody wants to do. There are 458 of them already. It is vital to consider local residents whose homes are affected. Business is one thing and it is very important—impact on business always needs to be considered—but impact on somebody's home I think is even more important. That is the logic upon which the opposition says we would not support this without that consideration and that adjustment. The change from a 120-person venue down to 80 I think is quite sensible, too. If you really do want to differentiate it from other opportunities that exist, that is quite sensible.

It also strikes me as a bit strange in this day and age when other responsible activities associated with the consumption of alcohol are considered fairly important for new licences and fairly important for the opportunity for people to consume alcohol in public outside of their homes—things like entertainment and things like the consumption of food and the enjoyment of a meal. However, for this new licence category they do not exist. They may exist, but they do not have to: it is not a necessity.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The Deputy Premier is telling me there must be food?

The Hon. J.R. Rau: There must be food.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Well—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: I'm sorry, I beg your pardon. Another licence, sorry.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The Deputy Premier has said that there must be food but has corrected himself.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: No, that's late night.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So I will get back on track. There is no need for food in this licence, which is actually one of the stock standard things that is encouraged everywhere you go with liquor licences. There is the opportunity that licensees could provide food but there is no necessity, so this is really going in a different direction from the mainstream expectation that goes along with responsible service of alcohol in our state. That seems quite strange to me as well.

Another thing I would like to focus on is that this does also create, very much, a city-country divide. Not only is this for a very specific part of Adelaide and our capital city, but these opportunities do not exist outside of that zone: they do not exist outside the metropolitan area. The legislation makes it clear that they may be extended to some other areas, like Glenelg, and I am sure it will not go too much further than the inner areas of the metropolitan City of Adelaide.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that on the one hand the government is creating a new licence category for the city only, where you can consume alcohol without entertainment or food and without the other sorts of things that are generally considered to be valuable and sensible. I accept the fact that the core codes of conduct and the core responsible service of alcohol activities are included in this licence category, but the mainstream direction towards other associated activities are not included. Yet, in rural South Australia there are an enormous number of community events that really struggle to get special circumstances licences for activities, such as rodeos.

Already since Christmas there have been three rodeos just in the electorate of Stuart in Carrieton, Wilmington and Peterborough. They have all been run responsibly and they have all been fantastic community events. Concerts, birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, fairs, if a family wants to have a 21st birthday party in the local town hall or the footy clubrooms: they need to apply for a special circumstances licence, even if they want to give the alcohol to their family and friends. I think that is quite sensible and it is okay because this is all about the supply of alcohol, not the sale of alcohol. However, it is very difficult for these people to do. They might put an application in six months in advance of the event but they will almost always get their application approval back just a few days before the event.

It is mandatory to put your application in in excess of three weeks before the event that you want a licence for. That proves that regardless of what the application is being made for, the Liquor and Gambling Commission and the people who need to be consulted can get through that work in three weeks because that is the date that they have set. However, if you apply for a licence many months out you will still get your approval only a few days beforehand. So, while there is merit in this proposal for Adelaide, I think it is very unfortunate that yet again the people of Adelaide are receiving preferential consideration. People who do not live in Adelaide are not at the forefront of the government's mind when it comes to trying to responsibly invent and create new opportunities so that people can responsibly consume alcohol. It gets tougher and tougher every year for people in rural and regional remote South Australia to get these licences and yet it appears to be getting easier and easier, under this proposed legislation, for the people of Adelaide to access alcohol whenever they want to.

I would also like to touch on the issue of fees. I have been told that very shortly, if not already, when somebody applies for a special circumstances licence from the hours of 1am to 2am (or after 1am) the application fee will be in the order of $700. The application fee is essentially for administration. We all understand that fees need to be paid to cover the costs that the application incurs, but I cannot accept that it is going to cost the government, or any government department, $700 to process an application for one hour (from 1am to 2am), when an application for the hours before 1am costs significantly less. That is an issue that needs to be considered when the government is considering the sorts of things it might like to do to improve people's access to alcohol.

With those few comments I urge the government to consider the entire state, not just Adelaide, when it considers making adjustments to make life easier for the providers, the suppliers or the consumers of alcohol in a responsible way throughout our state. Of course, as do my colleagues, I could not support this legislation if local people in their homes who are affected would not have the right to object.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:09): I rise to support the Liquor Licensing (Small Venue Licence) Amendment Bill 2012, with the one amendment outlined by my deputy leader, the member for Bragg. First, I would like to put on the record my congratulations to the member on attaining this position. I look forward to a fine stewardship with our new leader, Mr Steven Marshall, and I congratulate him on his escalation to the position of opposition leader. I look forward to him guiding us for the next 14 months until he changes roles into the top job, and I am sure he will get that. Also, as I said earlier, I look forward to accompanying you, sir, to Government House shortly. I was wondering whether you would be wearing the wig, but you probably do not need to because you already have a natural one.

As the member for Schubert (which includes the Barossa Valley and parts of the Adelaide Hills) issues such as this always interest me. The sale and consumption of alcohol has changed greatly over the time I have been here, which is, give or take a few years, about 20 years. It is a much accepted practice nowadays and it is linked to food and entertainment. There still are alcohol-related problems, as have been highlighted by the member for Bragg, the member for Stuart and the member for Fisher, especially with our youth and binge drinking. We do not seem to be able to address that.

We do support this bill but realise that we already have ways and means of getting people to get these special circumstances licences, so I just wonder why we are doing this. Costs are identified as being a major barrier to these small venue operators who want to be licensed—costs and, indeed, red tape, waste, and time. This bill is obviously supposed to streamline the process, but I question whether it will. Paperwork and bureaucracy seem to follow and stifle new acts such as this. I hope we are able to keep that out of it and keep the intention of this bill.

Fast-tracking could be a bit of a risk. You cannot just slam these things through, particularly in relation to this issue. Proper scrutiny is paramount, but without undue delays. Eleven in the morning until midnight is okay, but I still question why Christmas Day is excluded. I know it is a big change for me to say this because, as a Christian, it has always been against my ethics, but, nowadays, a lot of people are eating out on Christmas Day. People do go out and they like to have a drink. Some restaurants and venues can get exemptions, but will it just be blanketed with that? More and more people, particularly in my age group, choose to have Christmas out at a restaurant, and they do like to have a drink. It is usually at midday so there should not be a problem with that. I just ask that controversial question. It probably has not been raised, but I raise it here.

The opposition will be moving amendments which I hope the government will agree to. I think it is commonsense that the maximum be reduced from 120 to 80 so that it really is then a small venue. We have many venues that would lend themselves to a small-venue licence. I hope the cost will not be prohibitive, as the member for Stuart just said.

On a committee visit to Melbourne a couple of years ago, we saw the transformation of the laneways and backstreets to boutique-style restaurants, wine bars, bistros and all sorts, where they took a dead end of town and brought it to life. There is no reason at all why Adelaide could not do exactly the same thing; in fact, more so.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: If we pass this, yes.

Mr VENNING: If we pass this. I think we will. I cannot see that we will stand in its way, so I look forward to bringing Adelaide to life. While the member for Adelaide is in the position, I am sure she will guide that, particularly in government. I am sure she would be very pleased to do that. Again, you do not have to travel far to see how this actually works.

Also, as the member for Stuart just said, I hope this does not just remain city centric, just in the CBD, because we have some fantastic, unique and often unknown venues in our tourism regions, particularly in the beautiful Barossa. Many of our cellar doors will be encouraged to have an extra small venue outlet away from the commercial wine outlets selling not just their own product. It states here, 'only applicable in a prescribed area', and it will be the CBD in the first 12 months. I just wonder why that is the case. Why does it need to be there at all? We can just leave it open to the commissioner to decide where and when.

I hope the government will allow regional South Australia to be involved with this. As my deputy has just said a few moments ago, hotels have also changed and so have the very strict standards to maintain public safety and so does this lower the standard—a cheap streamlined option. It really will be a 'try it and see' option.

My region is well served with outlets at the moment but it could be much better. The unique character of our wine regions—and in my case the beautiful Barossa Valley—can be further highlighted by the smaller boutique venues. Also in the Flinders Ranges—the member for Stuart is still in here—I have visited many small venues up there and there are some unique positions. I visited the Blesing's in Bangor which is a little shack on the side of a hill. It is the most unique and beautiful part of South Australia. In that shack, not only are you able to try to the Blesing wines but he also has a grand piano in there, and David Blesing is a magnificent pianist—and that is a secret that people do not know about. It is a fantastic experience. I am sure that he, too, could avail himself of this to be able to sell a wide range of products that he cannot at the moment. That is a bit of a plug. The member for Stuart would know about that. It is wonderful.

I was curious to hear just a few moments ago that it is not necessary to supply food. That is a new and, as some would say, a strange move. A lot of these venues, as I noticed in Melbourne, were licensed coffee bars and licensed snack bars or just a little roadside bar. That is why it is obviously written like it is, but it is unusual. It really is a 'wait and see' option with all this. I will wait to see what happens. I just hope that all South Australians can benefit from this. I hope the government will hear that one amendment and I support the bill.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:17): Thank you and congratulations on your elevation to the office. I congratulate the new Leader of the Opposition, Mr Steven Marshall, and his deputy, Ms Vickie Chapman, on their new roles. I look forward, onwards and upwards on this side of the house.

The Liquor Licensing (Small Venue Licence) Amendment Bill 2012 is very important for me as the member for Morphett. At last count I had 106 restaurants and cafes within walking distance of my office at Glenelg. While somebody said I had put on a bit of weight, I think I am just getting a thicker skin being in this place. If those 106 restaurants and cafes choose to operate as a licensed venue, we want to have that happen in an efficient way at minimum cost for those people but also in a very responsible way.

This bill is supported by the opposition. The one amendment is a sensible amendment. The need to have these smaller venues is supported all around Australia. Down at Glenelg, the nearly three million visitors a year who come to Glenelg would love to have the opportunity to visit more eateries and licensed premises, but at the same time, as it is put in the government's paper in this bill, there will be restricted trading hours on these. We do not want to encourage people who might want to act in an antisocial way to congregate in small bars and clubs around the place.

At Glenelg, with the Glenelg Precinct Liquor Licensing Accord with the police, the traders, the council and the Jetty Road Mainstreet Board—and I have been included in many of their meetings—we have very responsible bars, clubs and pubs down there. They are trying to do the right thing. Some people are attracted to the area who want to misbehave and do not have any regard for people's rights or their own responsibilities, so what we need to do is make sure that the licensed venues are aware of the regulations and restrictions. They are not going to be onerous but, if there are issues, they can be very quickly put back in their place by the Liquor Licensing Commissioner doing what we want him to do, what he wants to do and what the people of South Australia want and certainly what I think the police want him to be able to do, and that is control these licensed venues to make sure that everybody benefits.

This piece of legislation is something I support. As the only designated tourist area in South Australia with its millions of visitors and its many licensed venues already, there is room for more. There is more room at the Bay for a more vibrant city and more entertainment. It is fantastic at the moment but this bill perhaps will help that with the amendment to restrict the numbers of patrons going into those venues so that they are not overcrowded. With that, I support the bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (12:19): Mr Speaker, as I mentioned briefly before, may I congratulate you on your elevation to this high office. I am sure you will discharge it with great dignity, and I am also sure that all of us who appreciate the sartorial will be greatly impressed with what lies ahead. So my very best wishes to you in your role.

I also congratulate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I have the great privilege of being able to exchange views across the crowded room—or sometimes not so crowded room—quite frequently. I congratulate her on having been recognised by her colleagues for the skills she has. I hope that in her returned role she is a little more statesperson-like with me and does not hop into me quite as much as she used to when she was a little bit more junior in the scheme of things. We will wait and see whether that is how it turns out.

In relation to this particular matter before the house, the opposition is trying to have its cake and eat it too. It is saying to the government, 'We like this, it's good. It's all about a vibrant city.' We have had the member for Morphett who is a passionate supporter of his electorate (and I do not want that in one of your cards this time, please); he does love Glenelg and is a great booster for Glenelg. The member for Stuart talked about how he would like to have the opportunity to have these things extended to regional areas, and the member for Schubert was telling us how he would not only like it extended to regional areas so that his friend could tickle the ivories while people were enjoying a drink and food or whatever in the venue, but he would also like it extended to Christmas Day.

All of that sounds very positive, but then they say, 'But there are conditions to us supporting this.' What are the conditions? The conditions are these: first, that they have rights of intervention which would be available to, as they talk about, the local residents (and we will come back to who those local residents might be in a moment); and they talk about a couple of major ideas, including why not use other licences. However, the main point was local residents having an opportunity to have an objection, and the size of the venue, the number of people who might be in the venue.

When you listen carefully to what they are saying—not the fuzzy vibe about 'Yes, we love this idea', but about the conditions they want to put on the idea—they render the idea utterly empty. It becomes just a bit of puffery, because what they are doing to this class of licence is something akin to what that great nation, France, did to the notion of free trade many years ago. It said, 'Yes, we embrace free trade, we love free trade. Anyone they like can trade with the French.'

In fact, they were concerned about the Japanese wanting to trade with the French. They said, 'No, it's no problem. You can bring your cassette players and everything in, no problem, but each cassette player must go through a very small warehouse in Marseilles, and only that warehouse.' Sitting inside that warehouse were two very old Frenchmen who took each cassette player out of each box, put on an Acker Bilk tape, and sat there until the end of the tape to make sure that the cassette player was working properly. Then they took the Acker Bilk tape out, carefully packed the cassette player back in the box, put it away in the warehouse and then got out the next one.

Mr Speaker, you will be shocked to know that not many cassette players got from the bond house in Marseilles into the French marketplace. But they embraced free trade. They went to all the meetings of the World Trade Organisation and said, 'We French, we love the free trade, you know.' They kept saying 'Oui, oui, free trade. Oui, oui.'

The SPEAKER: The language of the house is English.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I beg your pardon; we are not in Montreal or somewhere, are we? So the French had pioneered this sort of overt piety but undercut it with complete malevolence, and that is exactly what the opposition is doing here. Let me explain why. First, why is it, I wonder, that the licence which presently exists, which apparently everybody should be using because they just do not understand what is going on—a special circumstances licence—that the special circumstances licence is not being used properly? The answer is that the biggest problem at the moment is that, for the special circumstances licence, certain conditions are attached to that licence. The member for Bragg says that, with the stroke of a pen, I, as minister for Business and Consumer Services, or the Liquor Licensing Commissioner could remove this awful burden.

Ms Chapman: No, make it cheaper, I said.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: From the applicant—make it cheaper! Do you know how much cheaper? It would be $700 if they do not want to trade after midnight. That is how much cheaper we could make it because that is all we charge them. Guess from where the rest of the costs come? The deputy leader and I, both being lawyers, would hate to see members of our esteemed profession missing out on the important opportunity of representing their clients in court, but that is where the money comes in. What happens is that somebody wants to open a small venue. I will give you a real life example. In Peel Street, a few months ago a couple of young men, who have not much except their labour and their enthusiasm, secured the lease of a small ground floor premises.

Ms Chapman: Sounds like a Peter Duncan story.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Nothing to do with him, no, a different story. These young men—and all they have is enthusiasm, passion and hard work—have gone in there and, using their own elbow grease, have sanded down this place, they are painting the place and doing literally everything themselves. They want to open a small venue in there, and they were trying to negotiate the existing liquor licensing arrangement.

As soon as they put in the application for the liquor licence the Union Hotel, which apparently, according to the owners of the Union Hotel, is immediately adjacent to their small premises in Peel Street, at least in terms of market, put in an objection. Their objection meant that these people, who wanted to open this venue, were forced to go through a conciliation process, at the end of which they are presented with Buckley's choice, which is to accept this enormous list of conditions we put on you—

The SPEAKER: Hobson's choice.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Hobson's—exactly; I stand corrected: Hobson's choice, Buckley's chance. They are presented with Hobson's choice: you accept all these conditions, which include that you cannot sell Australian beer because that attracts yobbos. This is true—I am not kidding. This is actually real. In fact, with Udaberri, which was referred to earlier, one of the conditions of their licence is that they are not allowed to sell Australian beer because when they got to this point in the process, if I recall correctly, somebody said, 'Oh, Australian beer attracts yobbos.' Parliamentary counsel reminds me that another example is The Establishment.

You cannot sell Australian beer because yobbos drink Australian beer, but if you sell Stella Artois you will attract a higher class of beer drinker. This is how absurd it gets. They could get to the point, seriously, where they could say that gentlemen who have grey hair cannot be admitted, and that would be a class of licence, which I think would be discriminatory. The absurdity of these things!

You get a great long list of these objections, and the person confronted with them basically has the choice of copping all these objections from somebody who is your competitor and trying to ruin your business before you get even started. These objectors are after the stillbirth of businesses; that is what these objectors are after. Let us get that really clear: they want to frighten these people out of having a go or make them a stillborn exercise. These people either accept that or they are off to the Licensing Court.

Once they get to the Licensing Court who do you think has more money, Mr Speaker: a couple of young blokes who are sanding the floor themselves because they cannot afford to pay somebody to come in and do it, or the publican down the street who has esteemed members of our profession acting on their behalf—in some instances silks and other very esteemed people? That is where the cost comes from; the cost does not come from the liquor licensing people.

So there is very real cost barrier here, and it comes from people who are anticompetitive. I do not blame them for that because they are protecting their businesses as they see it, but let's not make a virtue out of what is simply a very self-interested—and maybe understandable from the perspective of that publican—exercise. It has nothing to do with community interest at all.

The member for Adelaide, interestingly enough, raised an issue—and I will just try to find out exactly what she said here—and asked, 'Why don't we have a good look at the whole act? Why don't we do something about freeing it up everywhere?' Well, I accept the invitation. If the Liberal Party is offering to remove the needs test and the other restrictive trade practices embedded deeply in the Liquor Licensing Act—if that is what they are offering, because that is what I understood the member for Adelaide was saying—in line with Productivity Commission recommendations which you free traders should find attractive—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If they want to remove the needs test, let's have a conversation about that. I am very happy to have a conversation about that. That brings me to another relevant point in this debate. The member for Bragg quoted statistics about how many licensed venues there are per head of population in Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney and so forth. There is an old saying: lies, damned lies and statistics, and here is another example of it. It is all very well to pick on the number of venues but that tells you nothing about the characteristic of those licences.

The licensing regimes in South Australia and Victoria are like chalk and cheese. In Victoria, the licensing regime was completely changed during the Cain or Brumby governments—in 1998. As a result of that, all of these restrictions in Victoria disappeared, including the needs test which does not exist in Victoria anymore. What you have in Victoria is basically—and I think this is pretty well the case—one class of licensing; you can basically do what you like.

In South Australia, we have many different classes of licence and each one of them is quite particular. You have the hotel licence, you have the restaurant licence, you have the special circumstances licence—all different licences—and each one of them has its own restrictions and barriers. To compare those multiple restrictive licences with a bunch of unrestricted licences is not comparing apples with apples, so that statistical argument, I think, does not go anywhere.

However, if the opposition is issuing an invitation to the government to get down and talk seriously about removing the needs test, my door is open—if that is what they are asking for. By the way, when you do ask me for that you should send Mr Horne a short note together with some tranquillisers because he will be in need of both.

Ms Chapman: You're just making this up!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is all true, I am afraid. Coming back to the issue, here is the straw man in the argument. We have dealt with this business about cost. I have established, I hope, that cost has got nothing to do with the government and everything to do with the anticompetitive nature of the liquor retail industry—which is entirely understandable from the perspective of the person who currently holds a licence. They are protecting their business and I understand that, but let's not pretend that they are out there Joan of Arc-like trying to save the world from the evils of alcohol. That is not what they are on about. What they are on about is allowing them to sell the alcohol and not someone else. Let's call a spade a spade—that is what it is.

As for the business about local people being consulted, our proposal says they must be consulted but they do not have a right to intervene. I will not repeat what I have just said about interventions on the part of pubs. Every bit of what I have said about that stands just as much in terms of interventions by individuals.

Now we get to the really bogus bit of the argument. What individuals? Who are these individuals? Who are the residents the member for Bragg, the member for Stuart and the member for Adelaide are wringing their hands about? I can tell the parliament who they are: they are the rare creature who is a resident who lives within a commercial or mixed-use district within the planning regime of the City of Adelaide.

It is true that, if somebody lived on the second floor of a building in Leigh Street, and that was their abode, they may have around them licensed premises. But if what they are suggesting is that the good burghers of Hutt Street, East Terrace or any of the other residential precincts of the City of Adelaide are going to be having, without any consultation, a licensed bar or restaurant dropped next to them, that is just rubbish because none of the provisions in this legislation do anything to change the zoning requirements and, if you do not meet the zoning requirements, you do not get to square one.

So, before these people make the application for one of these licences, they have to satisfy the planning authority that what they are doing is a permitted land use in that space. If the City of Adelaide's development plan says that you cannot run a bar in that place, they do not even get to square one. So, this argument about residents is totally bogus. If it had any merit at all, the solution is simple, and that is to go to the Adelaide City Council and say, 'City Council, your zoning of this precinct as being mixed use or something is unfairly impacting residents. Can you please considering a rezone?', which they could do. They could ask the minister to do something about it, and the minister might well do something about it. So, it is a totally bogus argument about impacting on residents. So, the argument about the government cutting the costs is bogus. The argument about ordinary residents being impacted by this is totally bogus.

Whilst we are on this, can I say that the Australian Hotels Association, to which we have spoken extensively about this (and God knows what the opposition's consultation has been, although I know where some of it has come from), has told us (that is, my departmental officers and me) that our proposal, with the exception of the 80 to 120-person limit, it can live with, which is actually, I give credit to the Australian Hotels Association, a concession on its part.

It represents the fact that we were in lengthy discussion, and we came to a compromise position, which was not my preferred position. My preferred position, I will tell you, Mr Speaker, was that we had 150 people as the maximum; they started off with 50 or thereabouts. We talked about all the other provisions that are in this bill and, in the end, the basic position was that we—the AHA and I, as the representative of the government—can agree on everything except that we both parted on the basis that they cannot agree on 120, we cannot agree on 80. That is where we got to. That is where the real argument, if any, lies.

What I say about that argument is essentially this: number one, it is a maximum number. That does not mean that a person applying for this licence has to ask for 120; it means that they can ask for up to 120. That is point one. Point two: if that person making the application wants to apply for anything over 100, I think the magic number is, they have to start providing for extra toilets and so on. We do not lift that responsibility from them in this legislation; they are still caught by it. So, they need to make a business decision: is it worth asking for more than 99, in which case only one wet area, which is a cheaper option in terms of the cost of fitting out the premises? Or do we want to say: we are going to go for that extra 21 people but we will have to build an extra toilet and do all of these other things?

We do not liberate them from any of these requirements at all—none. There is this simple argument: do we want to restrict it to 80 or 120? My argument is this. Number one: if they want to go over 99, they will have extra costs anyway; that is a business call for them. Number two: on any given day they do not necessarily have that number in there; that is the maximum number they can have. Number three: after consultation with the small venue owners, I have found the consensus to be that if you cut their maximum number of people below a certain number, the probability is the business will not be viable.

We have pitched it at a level where we believe most of those businesses will be able to survive if they wish to go to that level. That is why that number is there. It is not much good this parliament passing the whole thing and then, for example, saying it is a maximum of 50 people in there, because there would not be one person who would say you could make a profit out of a venue with only 50 people in there. We are saying we want to give them every opportunity to run a profitable business and 120 is a fair number. That is where the debate is, between 80 and 120.

The rest of these arguments are totally bogus and if the Opposition persists with these arguments I will be able to say to all the people in South Australia who are interested in a vibrant city, all the young people to whom we have spoken about this, 'If you want to know why this licence is not going ahead, if you want to know who is stopping this, it is the Opposition.' They have so bedevilled this licence category with impossible impediments that it is actually a joke, a charade. It is not a licence at all: it is a mirage that you might apply for and never get—a complete waste of time.

Other points were raised by some of the members—the member for Schubert, the member for Stuart and the member for Morphett—about regional South Australia, Glenelg and so forth. Why is it that we limit it to the city of Adelaide? My recollection is that after discussion with various people it was thought the best thing to do was start there and see how it goes. I do not think the AHA was comfortable with us opening it up to everybody. I may be corrected, but my recollection of it is that one of the reasons we initially confined it to the city of Adelaide was this is part and parcel of the general negotiation with the AHA to try to find a consensus.

The AHA urged us not to allow this thing just to be an open go across the whole state, because it said it might impact badly on regional hotels and blah blah blah. We said, 'Okay, as part of a negotiated proposition, why don't we just try it in the city for a start and see how we go?' That is where we have come to, but if the Opposition wants to open that debate up with me, I am happy to have that conversation. I think there is an opportunity to have a discussion about that.

Likewise, the question of food. Bear in mind, these premises will still be covered by the liquor code—not the late night code, because I doubt whether they will be operating anywhere near where the late night code is concerned, but they will still be operating within the general code. If I could get agreement from the Opposition on everything else and they said, 'But we do want to have something in there about food,' again that is something we could have a conversation about, but I am not going down the old road of the bona fide meal.

Mr Speaker, you are too young to remember this, but once upon a time when I was a younger man, we used to go to a place called The Old Lion. The Old Lion was a cavernous place where the music used to thump so that your innards started to vibrate as soon as you went into the place. They had lots of these balls with mirrors on them and flashing lights. You would not remember this, member for Bragg; you are far too young as well. There were great tunes like Gloria Gaynor and all these people.

You would go in there and you were given a chit. You wondered, 'What am I to do with this chit?' Then somebody would direct you to the servery, which as I recall was in the corner closest to the corner of Melbourne Street.

In that servery, there were a number of people who had the task of providing a piece of chicken which was a pretty horrible looking piece of chicken, but that was okay because nobody ever got to eat them so it did not matter what they looked like. In fact, they could have been made of rubber and recycled out of a bin into which they went soon after they were collected. You would go there and you would collect your piece of horrible chicken, you would get a big dollop of coleslaw on your plate, you would hand over your chit, thereby proving that you had received a bona fide meal and then you would walk to the end of the servery where huge bins were provided for you to dispense with your bona fide meal so that you could get back to Gloria Gaynor.

I am not going back there. I refuse to go back there. So, if what you are talking about is saying that something to eat should be available, I do not have an in-principle problem with that; but, if you just get back to this bona fide meal or some equally absurd proposition, you either wind up with the absurdity of people lining up to collect food which they immediately dump in a bin in order to have sort of technical compliance with the licence conditions or what you are doing is another version of what you are doing in the rest of your proposals to actually completely mess this licence category up so it is impossible for anyone to achieve anything out of it.

If what you are saying is food, I define food as something you eat, just as I would define drink as something you drink. I do not want to be prescriptive about it. I know there are some people who are worried. What if it is chips, which have salt on them and salt might make you drink? I am not going to get into specifying the sodium content of the food. Maybe they would be happier if patrons must have fruit available—apples, oranges and bananas. We know that is healthy and they may or may not buy one, but at least it is there. I would be up for that because that is part of the several food groups.

Anyway, to the extent there is any bona fide concern about the provision of a meal or food, if that is what it is going to take to sort this out, I am prepared to have that conversation, if that makes any difference, as long as we do not go down this farcical track that we used to go down before with the Old Lion. As I said, the member for Bragg is too young to remember it. There is nobody here who can remember it.

Mr Goldsworthy: I remember it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Kavel remembers it. Actually, I might have seen the member for Kavel there one night. Were you collecting your chicken just ahead of me? Quite probably.

Mr Goldsworthy: I could never remember.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: He cannot remember—no, they were big nights. Anyway, the point is, if you genuinely want to have a conversation about food, okay, I am up for that as long as it does not turn into a Trojan horse for another way of mucking this licence category up. If you want to talk about regional issues, I am fine about talking about regional issues, but have a care because, if you move down that track, you are going to run into your friends in the Australian Hotels Association and they will not be happy but, if you want to open that one up, I am happy to talk to you.

Likewise, I was thrilled to hear that the member for Adelaide wants to open up the whole question of the needs test again—terrific, let us have the conversation but, again, have a care. Your friends in the AHA might not be so keen to support your election campaign if you decide that is something you are going to run with, because it is not at the top of their list. I can give you a bit of a hint on that one.

So, there you are. If there is to be any bona fide debate on this matter, any bona fide debate at all, it is not about giving local residents a say. There are no local residents, because the planning regime says this only goes in a place which is a business area or a commercial precinct or an entertainment precinct. Let's face it, if someone is silly enough to buy a house in the middle of Hindley Street and live there, do you not think they might have thought, 'Hey, I am going to be surrounded by drunks and noisy people'? Would that not be sort of self-evident?

The people who live in the south-east and the south-west of the city are not even going to know about this, because it will not affect them. It does not go anywhere near them, so that is a completely bogus argument. The argument about government contributing to cost is a completely bogus argument. It is not the government: it is the anticompetitive actions of other people or, if you open it up to residents to be able to lodge objections, you have anticompetitive action by proxy where you inveigle your mate who lives nearby to put in an objection on your behalf and then your mate says, 'I am worried about it.' We have all seen it; we are all grown-ups; we know how it works. That is all just nonsense, to be quite frank.

We are left with one actual issue here which is, I accept, an issue for discussion, that is, what is the number? Is it 80 or is it 120? On that topic, I would say this: if you set it at 80, you are simply doing the bidding of the AHA. That will make them happy, and maybe that is the purpose of putting that up, but will it mean that any young entrepreneur is going to be able to take advantage of this licence category? I would say to the house that it will limit the number of people who can take advantage, and it might severely limit the number of people who can take advantage, and the fewer people who can take advantage the less relevant this is and the more it becomes simply a charade.

I strongly urge the opposition to reconsider their position on all the foreshadowed amendments. We are seriously interested in giving the city—and if they want to talk to me about rural areas, by all means, as we are seriously trying to give those areas opportunities—opportunities for young people, in particular, who have a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of flair, but not much capital and cannot afford to be in court arguing with QCs on their behalf all the time. We want to give those people a go.

We want those people then to contribute to the vibrancy of the city. We want them to be able to bring live music into their venues. We want them to supply interesting venues for people to enjoy—venues which are small enough that the person who is serving you the drink is the person who owns the venue, and where the person who is serving you the drink is so interested in what is going on in there that it is going to ruin their personal licence if they have idiots and yobbos in their place. You could not have better supervision than supervision by the owner for the owner of the owner (that is a misuse of Lincoln), and that is what we are on about.

Ms Chapman: I thought it was 'the best fertiliser is the owner's footprint'.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, sure, but it is just that Lincoln is more topical at present. By the owner, for the owner, of the owner, I like the sound of that, but 'the best fertiliser is the owner's footprint' does it for me as well. That is probably more of a rural saying, is it?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I thought so. Anyway, that is where we are going. I would strongly urge all members to please reconsider the foreshadowed amendments by the member for Bragg. I acknowledge, as I have said, that there is, I guess, an argument to be had about the number, but I would rather err on the side of giving these young people who want to give our city a bit of zing a greater opportunity to open a business than a lesser opportunity to open a business.

Let's face it, small business employs a lot of people, Adelaide is a small and a medium-sized business town, and we would love to see them prosper. We love jobs, we love young people working hard, we love young people succeeding, we like the spirit of free enterprise, we like all these things, and we are trying to sow the seeds so that these beautiful plants can grow and bear fruit, but some would like to render the soil desolate, and this would be a great shame in my humble opinion and that of everyone of this side of the house. I think shortly we have to attend to a very important matter. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

The SPEAKER: Thank you for that made-to-measure second reading reply.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT