HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-10-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Liquor Licensing (Entertainment on Licensed Premises) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 July 2015.)

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (12:43): I indicate that I will be the lead speaker for this side of the house today to speak in favour of the Liquor Licensing (Entertainment on Licensed Premises) Amendment Bill. Obviously, this bill pertains to an area in which the government has not done enough in the past—notably, the live music industry—and I note that there have been several submissions in regard to this bill from an array of stakeholders.

Just to give some background and to paint a picture for this place, in terms of its economic importance, it is said that during 2012 the live music industry generated revenues of $2.5 billion. When you look at the total profits and wages generated by the industry—that is the industry value added—it amounted to $1.53 billion. I am quoting these figures from a study done by EY in 2014 entitled 'Size and scope of the Live Performance Industry Live Performance Australia' report.

The report goes on to study the industry, its outputs, its levers and the things that affect it. When you look at the industry economic indicators, obviously there would be three indicators for measuring an industry like this and its size—the industry's output, the industry value add and the industry unemployment. Obviously, all of these numbers are quite valuable in their own right. The report goes on to study per capita results. It gives a comparison of each state and territory's share of the live performance industry and it compares it against their populations. It provides somewhat of an insight into the concentration of the industry relative to where people live.

It starts with New South Wales in 2012 with 7.35 million people, which is 32.1 per cent of the population and a 38.4 per cent share of industry value add. Victoria had approximately 5.68 million people in 2012, which is a 24.8 per cent share of population and a share of industry value of 27.6 per cent. Queensland had approximately 4.6 million people in 2012, which is a 20.1 per cent share of population and a share of industry value of 15.5 per cent. WA had 2.47 million in 2012, which is a 10.8 per cent share of population and a share of industry value of 10.6 per cent. South Australia in 2012 had 1.66 million people, which is a share of population of only 7.3 per cent; however, it had a share of industry value add of only 5.7 per cent which is very disappointing. It goes on.

When you look at the economic contribution by state and territory, you can see with data how South Australia lags behind the rest of Australia, how South Australia has been lagging behind for some time and how the government, and the state government particularly, is playing catch-up at the moment. It has ignored the live music industry for far too long.

Let me not just talk about this; I will back it up with some facts. They have an economic contribution study by state and territory where they compare the output by state and territory between 2008 and 2012 and, notably, although the Northern Territory had the largest gain in output in terms of percentage—obviously this is from a lower starting point in 2008—I note that Tasmania and Queensland also had very strong results with real growth of 20.3 per cent and 20.9 per cent respectively. This would be mainly driven by an increase in the number of performances in those states. However, at the other end of the scale, in South Australia output declined by 11.5 per cent.

When you look at the live performance industry output by state and territory combined and comparing 2008 to 2012, New South Wales in 2008 had an output of approximately $810 million to $829 million in 2012, so it has gone up by 2.3 per cent. Victoria have done a lot of good things in the past and that is why perhaps they have not got the aggressive growth that you would expect in other states, but in 2008 it was $599 million and in 2012 it was $596 million, so it has basically gone backwards by only half a per cent. Regarding Queensland, in 2008 you had $263.4 million to $318.5 in 2012, an increase solid change of 20.9 per cent. In Western Australia, $224.2 million in 2008 to $232.2 million in 2012, so a change of 3.6 per cent.

However, in South Australia, it is very disappointing. Numbers do not lie. Of all the things that may do, numbers do not lie. In 2008 our live performance industry output in South Australia, according to these figures, was $151.2 million. Compare that to 2012: in 2012 South Australia had a live performance industry output of $133.7 million. That is a change of 11.5 per cent, so we have gone backwards in South Australia from 2008 to 2012.

You might ask (I can read your mind, Deputy Speaker): why is that the case? One of the reasons—and I will touch on the various submissions that have been made to the government on this bill—and one of the recurring themes is that the government has failed to address issues that are stifling the industry for far too long. It has done this on an array of fronts.

That is very disappointing because we all know that a good, healthy live music scene is certainly key to vibrancy in any city. It is especially attractive to young people but also to older people. We have been doing everything we can in South Australia to address the exodus of young people, young professionals especially, who are the brains trust of South Australia: they are our future; they are the ones who have the potential to earn for many years to come, to sustain what is becoming an ageing population.

Therefore, we are called upon and implored to do whatever we can to engage in strategies to put laws forward to make sure that we send a strong message that we want to have a vibrant state but especially a city. It is not just the city. I read that the council area that I was once a part of as a councillor (the Norwood Payneham and St Peters council) has the highest level of live music venues after the City of Adelaide. It is not just in the city, it is also in the inner suburban areas of the city as well.

The Liquor Licensing (Entertainment on Licensed Premises) Amendment Bill 2015 will be supported by the opposition on this side of the chamber. It has been welcomed by many organisations and the first one that I would like to talk about today is the Australian Hotels Association of South Australia (AHA). Obviously, the AHA has welcomed the government's intention to remove the requirement for separate entertainment consent for licensed premises that wish to provide entertainment before 11am and midnight. The AHA welcomes that and fully supports it.

In fact it is no surprise that the AHA thinks that it does not go far enough. Perhaps we will talk about what the AHA would like another day but I think they agree that this is certainly a good start and something that has been a long time coming. They point out, and we agree, that licensed venues are critical to the success and development of the live music industry.

Where do live music artists practice, if you like? Through hotels, through pubs, through clubs, through taverns, through nightclubs. These are by far the overwhelming majority of venues that host live music. It is said that more than 76 per cent of all APRA AMCOS receipts from live music expenditure actually come from these licensed premises.

They talk about the specific entertainment consent requirement and how this has been a major complaint of the AHA, South Australian members, for many a time. I can also say that I have spoken to local publicans in my electorate and also neighbouring electorates who agree with that. I think it is a no-brainer that, when you go interstate, especially on the east coast of Australia, one of the first things you realise when you go into the city is how the live music industry has been liberated. It is a beautiful thing to see many more live music ventures going on.

The requirement for this specific entertainment consent has been a major complaint of the AHA for some time. It has been raised time and time again. Some actually say that it is the single biggest barrier currently facing venues that want to include live music or other entertainment as part of their overall offering.

As I pointed out, ideally, the AHA would like to see the removal of the need for entertainment consent altogether; however, that is not what has been brought forward to the house today. Perhaps it will be a future discussion point for stakeholders to engage in, but I think what we are talking about today is a good start. I think those who reside near licensed premises, from my experience as a councillor and now a member of parliament, would be the ones who would have the most to say about that.

The AHA has pointed out that amenity is important. Obviously, everyone has the right to enjoy a quiet amenity, especially in the vicinity of their residential area. There are obviously a number of pressure points, both in the city and outside of the city, and there is potential, if we are not careful, for conflict amongst residents and venues who provide entertainment. I think in any one of these bills we have to strike a fine line between regulation and vibrancy because, as I pointed out, this is an enormous economic area. Sometimes people do not realise how big it is, but talk to any young musician who is trying to make it out there in the world. I think we need to do everything we can to try to help them out, given that the state is going backwards and our unemployment rate is now the highest in Australia. As lawmakers, we need to do what we can to not stifle job growth and development.

The AHA also talks about how this amendment, if it is passed—and I am sure it will be passed in a short time and quite expeditiously—will have time to prove itself. Depending on how this amendment goes and how the community reacts to it outside of this place, I think we might be able to look at the other issues that the AHA has with entertainment consent.

Obviously, as the AHA points out, residents and other stakeholders or people affected will also retain their rights through local council and planning requirements. I have also spoken to staff at local councils in my electorate and I have to say that, on the whole, on balance, they are generally comfortable with these amendments. We cannot underestimate how large the role of live music and entertainment is, not only in providing an active night-time economy but also, as I said, a vibrant city. It does serve as a critical employment and business point of opportunity. Look at Rundle Street and Hindley Street and also, as I said, areas just outside of the city. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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