HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-11-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Local Government (Mobile Food Vendors) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (17:00): It is always difficult when you have to seek leave to continue your remarks because you have to try to remember where you are up to. If my memory serves me correctly, I was at the point of discussing the problem of every council in the state having to formulate a policy by this piece of legislation, and I think I was talking about councils in my electorate. I think I mentioned Robe. I think I was saying something along the lines that those people who are running small businesses in Robe that are supplying food, particularly to the tourist industry and so on, are there all during the winter months and the quiet periods of the year.

They are there all the time. If we supported this particular piece of legislation, I believe we would impose an unfair burden on those mum-and-dad small businesses that have made a commitment to that local area. We would impose unfair competition by a group of people who could blow in and out of town—maybe just come in on the weekends when the pickings were the ripest and the easiest—and undermine the viability of the existing bricks and mortar businesses which are established there and, as I say, are there all year round.

That is in the small community of Robe in my electorate, but there are other communities in my electorate such as Bordertown, Keith and the Tatiara council. I cannot imagine too many food truck operators wanting to move into Bordertown or Keith in an effort to enrich themselves in those communities, yet the Tatiara council, under this particular measure, would be obliged to formulate a policy. It would be obliged to spend its ratepayers' money developing a policy, and there would have to be public consultation, all this sort of thing, for no reason at all.

The reality is that it would be most unlikely, or very rare, that a food truck operator would want to even enter the council area. There might be special events and special occasions and things like the local show. At the local show in Bordertown, of course there is someone there in a truck selling coffee. Of course there is. That happens now, and there is not a problem with that sort of thing happening and I do not think the council would seek to prevent that happening, but why should that council be subject to developing a policy and going through all the public consultation, doing all that sort of thing, for no benefit to anybody? It would add a cost to its ratepayers, which include the already existing bricks and mortar businesses which may or may not be subject to unfair competition.

The bill, according to the proponent in his second reading address, provides that councils will no longer be able to restrict the number of permits that can be issued, so you can have any number of permits and food trucks in, as I say, particularly those areas where the pickings would be quite rich and they would, obviously, cherrypick those.

You cannot put any restrictions on the operating hours. I do not think that is really a problem because these people, by their very nature, would only operate when there is a demand for their services and I do not see that that is a problem. I do not know that it has been a problem historically. There is no restriction on the type of food that can be sold, and I do not necessarily see that as a problem at all. But I can certainly see the number of permits being problematic. Of course, I come back to my main point. I believe this represents unfair competition to a group of business operators who, I dare to suggest, are already finding life fairly difficult and fairly tough. The proponent (member for Kaurna) suggests in his opening remarks:

In recent years, food trucks have brought a new element to South Australia's food culture—

I think he is overblowing it a little bit there. I take issue with this bit—

and have allowed entrepreneurs to enter the hospitality market in an affordable and flexible setting.

That is the reality and that is the bit I object to. In terms of allowing them to enter in an affordable and flexible setting, 'affordable' means that they are doing it more cheaply than the existing businesses. They can get into the marketplace without paying their fair dues. That is where the unfair competition comes from. That is where you adversely impact on those people who are already operating in that marketplace.

To me, a 'flexible setting' says that, again, you allow these people to be flexible. They can move from rich pickings to rich pickings. They do not have to be there in the quiet times. That gives them a distinctly unfair advantage. The existing businesses are there every day of the week, every week of the year, paying their way, paying their rates, paying their suppliers and paying their staff. This bill would allow fly-by-nighters to come in and cherrypick and to undermine those mum-and-dad businesses.

Some new people who are very good at running a food business or a hospitality business may be successful, but why should we give those people the sort of leg-up that this bill would give them? If they are that good at it, they could be successful at running a traditional business and not being successful because they get an unfair advantage over those who, I reiterate, are mum-and-dad small businesses. That is basically what the competition would be: the small family businesses run by mums and dads, by sons and daughters, providing a very important service even when times are quiet.

I cannot support the matter brought by the member for Kaurna. As I said in my opening remarks, I suspect that, by the way this has come to the parliament, even the support within the Labor Party is but lukewarm. I hope that the house rejects the matter.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (17:08): I thank members for their commentary and speeches in regard to this bill over the last couple of months. This has been an important debate and I appreciate all the members from both sides who have made contributions. I obviously very much disagreed with some of those on the other side. However, there was merit in some of the discussion in the member for Goyder's contribution.

I did enjoy the opportunity, before bringing this bill to the house, to discuss with the member for Goyder what we were planning to do and try to reach a resolution on how we should proceed with this matter. Unfortunately, as the member outlined, he did take this matter to the party room and there was a strong debate within the party room. I am sure we would have liked to have been a fly on the wall for that debate.

Through that very strong debate within the party room, they have come out with a decision to just flatly oppose this bill and oppose what we are proposing to do here. That is sad because, if the Liberal Party had actually wanted to engage with the government in working on this bill, we could have looked at a whole range of ways in which we could address some of the concerns they had.

Unfortunately, they have just decided to flatly refuse to negotiate, flatly refuse to consider agreeing to this bill or to any measures whatsoever around food trucks. I think that it is really important to note at this point that this is yet another example of where we have seen the opposition backing those very big businesses in South Australia. This is something that happens time and time again. This is a party that calls itself the party of small business, yet it goes out of its way to protect large businesses.

We have seen this very recently in terms of one of the only policies that the opposition has produced, which was regarding shop trading hours. They have gone out of their way in terms of that policy to support the large retailers, Woolies and Coles, in opening up those shop trading hours against the cries from the small business community in South Australia who have the ability to open whenever they want and who will be very significantly burdened if shop trading hours are deregulated, as proposed by the Liberal Party.

We also have the discussion about Uber in South Australia. The Liberal Party was very out there first and foremost saying we should allow Uber, which is a big multinational company, to operate in South Australia without any compensation for those small business operators in the taxi industry across South Australia. In the government, we took a very different approach from that. We said that we should compensate those taxi operators and those licence holders who operate their businesses and are small businesses and that we should have regard for the position they are in. However, that was not the position of the opposition. I note that on 14 January 2016, in an article in The Advertiser, the member for Unley was quoted as saying:

It was 'inconsistent' for the Government to support some innovative business models, such as food trucks, but not others, such as UberX.

On the one hand, they are saying that we should come to their support of Uber, which we now of course have done, but they do not see the contradiction in now saying that they should support food trucks at the same time.

Of course, the Liberal Party originally also opposed small bar licences operating in the CBD. That was another instance when big operators were saying that these small businesses should not be able to get a licence to operate and that we should just support the big hoteliers, keeping their position as it was. Luckily, we were able to persevere, and there are a lot more businesses now operating in South Australia because of that.

At the end of the day, this matter is really about removing red tape to allow businesses to operate. There is a significant amount of red tape that the food truck operators are at the mercy of at the moment if they want to operate on a road in South Australia. For instance, in the City of Adelaide, there is a scheme that is underway and operational, and it has gone through a number of changes, and it is really being clamped down to try to limit the number of people who can operate under that scheme.

But outside of the City of Adelaide there are next to no schemes operating. There is a very inconsistent approach across all council areas in South Australia; in fact, most councils do not have any schemes operating whatsoever. This is really about saying that we should reduce our regulation of this industry and that we should keep some of those elements where there does need to be important regulation. In particular, it is about making sure that the councils on a local level can work out where the best places are for food trucks to operate so that they will not interrupt the bricks and mortar businesses and will boost the economic benefit to that area, rather than reduce it. It is about removing red tape.

We have heard a couple of arguments from the opposition that are entirely inconsistent with each other. On the one hand, some people are out there from the opposition saying, 'We don't like this bill because it is about putting in more regulation.' On the other hand, there are some people on the opposition who have said in their speeches, 'We don't want this bill to happen because there won't be enough limits on what these food trucks can do and how they can operate.' What they are saying is completely inconsistent.

The actual truth of the matter is that this is about a consistent regulatory approach across the councils and removing that red tape to operate, because at the moment you cannot operate these businesses across most of the councils in South Australia. This is another example where we have free enterprise being blocked from operating, and we are trying to address that.

There are also huge inconsistencies regarding other types of businesses. It is not just food trucks that compete with bricks and mortar businesses. You have people who operate on the internet. The opposition is very much in favour of Uber, and we have now seen the advent of UberEATS who will deliver food to you no matter where you are, through the click of a button, and that needs no bricks and mortar operation whatsoever to operate.

There is a huge number of mobile operators who compete with bricks and mortar people. Lube Mobile, who will come to your house and do your mechanics, compete with bricks and mortar mechanics. Whether it is mobile dog groomers or mobile laundry services, all these operate across South Australia on a mobile basis and compete with bricks and mortar businesses. Presumably, if the Liberal Party followed through on their conviction with this bill, then they would outlaw all of those from operating because they compete with bricks and mortar businesses.

I think it is a very sad state of affairs when, clearly, some of the people in the property industry, particularly a very large property developer in Adelaide, write a large number of letters to members opposite and all members of the house with some very outlandish claims about what will happen here, and then, shortly after those letters are sent, the Liberal Party decides to oppose this bill. I think that is a real shame because we know that if you go out there and talk to people about this legislation, they are very supportive.

We have had several rounds of consultation with people about what the content of this bill should be, and there is broad support for making sure that food trucks have an ability to get out there and compete. No-one is saying that they should be able to operate wherever they like, but people want to have the choice and ability to find a food truck if they want to. Under the proposal from those opposite, that just will not happen across South Australia.

People do not understand those objections. They do not understand why you are blocking this legislation, and I believe you are going to be hearing from many, many people who are very opposed to the action you are taking in this house. We on this side have launched a petition against that. We have been out talking to people who support food trucks in South Australia, and we will be making it very clear as to who is standing in the way of this legislation.

We are absolutely supporting bricks and mortar businesses across South Australia, and there are a number of different ways that we are doing it. One of the key ones is that we are abolishing stamp duty on commercial property transactions, which is obviously very important for people who want to own and operate a commercial premises. We are also getting rid of business transaction stamp duties. We have introduced the Job Accelerator Grant Scheme, so there is a $10,000 grant for each new employee you hire.

We have introduced the small bar legislation, of course, which was originally opposed by the Liberal Party as well. We are increasing our spending on tourism and events to bring more people to the city. We are investing money to improve our city's laneways, which is helping property throughout the city and, of course, we have introduced and passed planning reform which is going to help get more commercial developments happening in South Australia. This is a whole range of different ways in which we are supporting those bricks and mortar businesses in South Australia.

What we are saying here is that if you want to operate a mobile food business, then there should be a way by which you can apply. You should be able to pay money to a council and get a licence to operate, and the council should be able to work out where the best place for you to operate is in the council area. It is not terribly controversial to most people out there on the street; unfortunately, it is to the Liberal Party.

Some of the objections we have heard from people through this debate include that this is somehow unlimited. It is not unlimited. In fact, we have been very careful. The key criterion for most of those small businesses, most of those small bricks and mortar food outlets, is that they do not want these businesses to operate right outside the premises they are renting or they own, and we think that is fair enough. We think it is important that, as a government, we say to the councils that they will have the ability to work out, on their local basis, the right locations for those businesses to operate.

They can either do that by producing a map, like the Adelaide City Council have done, of all the areas in which you can go to operate one of these businesses, or you can have a simple rule that can apply across your whole council area to say you can operate at X hundred metres away from a bricks and mortar business. We think that is going to be relatively simple for councils to work out at a local level by using one of those two methods.

There have also been some discussions about the fees. We have set the fees at a level that is between where the Adelaide City Council have their fees now and where they had them originally. This is a maximum fee. We believe that, of those councils that do operate these licences at the moment, most of them have fees much, much lower than that.

We think this fee is equivalent to the council rates that you would be paying in a similar-size business in the city, and that is through some work that the Adelaide City Council has done in the past. We think there is also a lot of flexibility for councils to work out on a local level. If they want to operate with lower fees in particular areas, they can do so. If there are particular other incentives they want to provide for people to get food trucks happening in their local area, then they will have the ability to do that.

We have also heard some comments from the opposition about Mad March festivals and events. This is very clear that this is not related to those; this is about on local road trading. Those festivals and events, which predominantly happen in parks and squares, will still be subject to the same local government permit system as works at the moment. There have been a few other comments and I know the member for Goyder wants to ask some questions, so we will deal with them when we get to the committee stage.

With regard to things such as the food passport, food truck operators, as well as other bricks and mortar businesses, have been very interested in making sure that there is an ability for the health department and local council food inspectors to have the benefit of the history of each food truck operating around South Australia. It is quite unrelated to this bill in the sense that a lot of those businesses operate at other festivals and events, not necessarily on-street trading.

We think it is important that we introduce a passport that will allow those councils to see the history of those food inspections, even if it has happened in other council locations. Of course, that is information that councils would have if it was a bricks and mortar business because they would have the history. However, where you are dealing with a business that moves around, you would not necessarily have that information.

We have also heard some comments about economic analysis and, of course, there was an economic analysis done by the Adelaide City Council in terms of the work that they have been doing. Adelaide City Council has been working on this for a number of years. Originally, some people, including the current mayor, Martin Haese, who I have got to work with quite well through the process of this work, were quite sceptical about food trucks and the impact they would have. So they did the work and they got a study done, which showed that there was very minimal impact upon the whole city trading of food trucks across the whole city. That is something that is published and available, and I am very happy to make that available for members.

In summary, I think this is an issue where we should be seeking the right balance between allowing these people to operate and allowing new businesses to operate. We have seen so many people start a food truck and then lead off into operating fixed premises businesses, such as Burger Theory.

Other people who are now exporting their products and services around the world or who are producing products to be available in supermarkets all started out as a food truck. If you are a food truck, you do not have to have the huge amount of start-up capital necessary to operate. We think this is an encouraging sign. It is just one aspect of our whole economic picture, but we think it is an important one that this bill can deal with in an appropriate way.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr GRIFFITHS: You have actually referred to economic modelling and in your response just then you talked about the City of Adelaide work. You have also talked about shop trading hours and I vividly recall the member for Waite, the Minister for Investment and Trade, being rather critical of the position that the Liberal Party had taken about its decision on a policy matter there and asking for economic modelling. While you have the Adelaide City Council data available, and I have also reviewed that, given that the implication of this legislation is across all 68 councils, have you requested or received from any group a wider ranging economic modelling assessment of the impact?

Mr PICTON: We looked at the work the Adelaide City Council has done, which is a very thorough report that they conducted. We used that work, as well as other work that has happened through the state government, to go out to the public and put our ideas forward. Originally, we did that through a discussion paper which outlined a whole different range of options we could take, then we produced a position paper outlining our preferred position on actions on food trucks, and we have now taken that to the parliament.

In terms of whether we have specifically designated another economic study into this matter—no, we have not. We have looked at what the Adelaide City Council have done in their economic study, and we have used that.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the parliamentary secretary for his response. Can I ask a question in relation to the Glenelg area, for example, and the member for Morphett has put to me concerns about the high level of vacancies within shop tenancies there. That is a high visitation area—and congratulations to them—so I want to see whether any work had been done to consider the impact and whether it was different in other areas, rather than in just the Adelaide City Council.

I am trying to consider this in a very objective way and to make the questions I pose on the basis of trying to ensure that there is an improvement to either the legislation or the regulations or an understanding of the implications of it en masse. Was there any consideration—and I would be interested in the feedback that you received from the consultation undertaken—particular to, say, the Glenelg area, where there is now a worry about vacancies in tenancies?

Mr PICTON: In regard to that, as I have outlined, the key requirement that we have put in to deal with that issue is that we have allowed councils to determine the locations for these trucks and operators to work in. That can work out on any local area in terms of having local consideration. The local council in Glenelg can say, 'We don't think that these trucks should be operating on Jetty Road or within a certain distance from Jetty Road, and we think this area near a sporting park or farther up, north of the beach for example, might be the appropriate place for food trucks to operate.' We think that is best worked out at a local level.

From previous experience, having worked for an economic modelling firm, when you are dealing with that level of variability it would be very difficult to produce an economic model that produced an answer at the end of the day out of that. I dare say that most economists would say that the more you open up business and competition, the better things will be generally. That is what most hard-headed, pointy-headed economists would say on those sorts of issues.

Mr GRIFFITHS: As a follow-up to that, there comes the concern I have tried to express, and I believe others from this side have expressed, about the requirement for councils to say that they must have permit opportunities. You have recognised the appropriate decision-making capacity that exists within local government to determine where they should be located, but the legislation at clause 5 demands that they have to issue a permit, and that has been a key issue for the Liberal Party on this. You have put forward other reasons why you think a decision was made, but for us it is the basis of the fact of where the decision-making should rest—not for part of it, but for all of it.

The Adelaide City Council has demonstrated, through the maturity of their decision-making, the review they have undertaken and the work they have done on this that they have created a system that does work, and I think that opportunity exists in other areas where the need exists. But, parliamentary secretary, your legislation demands that councils are required to do that—yes, to determine where it can be located, but no input on what the operating hours of it are: they have to have it. That is the basis of the concern we have with this.

Mr PICTON: Understanding that, our basis has been looking at most council areas across South Australia, as I outlined. The idea that you can get these permits is not really accurate at the moment. The Adelaide City Council has a scheme, and you say it is working really well—other people have different views on that matter—but for most other places around South Australia it is not accessible for you to get a permit.

We have looked at some of the council areas; in fact, one council area in Port Adelaide Enfield has an ice-cream only permit. We have taken the approach of saying that it should be like applying for a builder's licence, for example, or something like that from Consumer and Business Services. It is not a question of being up to a person that day whether or not they should receive the permit. If you have met the criteria, then you should be able to receive a permit to operate.

The limiting factor that we have used here is not the number of permits, but more the location for which the permit should operate. That will achieve competition, in terms of allowing businesses to start and operate, which is something the government and I want to see happen in South Australia, and it will also make sure that there is a good balance between those fixed operators and the new mobile food vendors.

Mr KNOLL: What happens if a council turns around and says that they have no areas that are prescribed and able to hold food vans? Is there a potential situation where vendors can apply for a permit but not have anywhere in the council area where they can trade?

Mr PICTON: We are very much hoping that that will not be the approach of councils. We are working with the LGA and councils in a cooperative manner in the hope that they can identify some area in each of their council areas that is an appropriate place for food vendors to operate. If a council were to turn around and say that they did not think there was anywhere in their large council area to operate even one food truck, then that is something that obviously we would have to look at. I am hoping that that is not going to be the case and that councils will work constructively to look at what is an appropriate area in their council.

I reiterate that they do not necessarily have to do, say, what the Adelaide City Council has done in working out a map where they have identified areas. They could work out and set a rule in terms of X hundred metres away from existing food businesses, which means that they do not therefore need to have the level of detail required under working out a specific map. We have left that decision to them. We want them to work locally on the best solution for their local area.

Mr KNOLL: Can I challenge that, parliamentary secretary. A briefing paper on the regulations that are coming into effect notes—and I am assuming quite specifically—that each council must adopt rules whereby the location of operation includes details on a map of the area. Do the regulations not state that councils need to create a map?

Mr PICTON: They say that they can create a map or they say they can either create a map or work out a rule that applies within their local council area, such as a couple of hundred metres away from an existing business. We are giving them the flexibility to work that out.

Mr KNOLL: Have you modelled any of the demand from some councils as to whether or not councils have ever been approached by somebody to operate a food van within their area? What I am trying to get at is whether we are essentially asking councils to work where there is no demand, no modelling of any demand, for any food vans to come into the council area.

Mr PICTON: I think that is a question that was asked by a couple of people in their speeches. In terms of how this is approached by the council, whether they do want to work out a specific area or whether they want to work out just a general rule that applies, it would give them the flexibility to go for a general rule, which would not be very much work for them to do. If they are a council where it is very unlikely that food trucks will apply, then it would not be very much work for them to set this in place and then maybe nobody applies for a licence in the end and there are no issues.

However, I think it is important that we consider the fact that these are not schemes that are operating across council areas at the moment. While we have one council where there is a scheme and there has been a lot of debate and discussion, other councils have not ventured into this area, and I think it is for a very good reason. They have probably seen what has happened in the Adelaide City Council and thought that they do not necessarily want to have that debate in their council area. It has meant that it has all been within the Adelaide City Council area and we have not seen this happen across the whole state.

Although, I should note that we have seen it in some councils, including my own council, the City of Onkaparinga. I am not always coming into this house to give credit to them, but I will on this occasion. They have said that this is something that they are quite keen to see and that they are keen to attract food trucks into their area. It might be that through this process they devise a more generous map scheme to look at what could apply and perhaps a more generous fee structure that could apply in their local area if they wanted to attract these trucks to their city.

Mr KNOLL: I assume that you are essentially saying that councils have to offer a permit to businesses and that there is no limit on the number of food vans that will be offered permits within a council area. How do you envisage the legislation dealing with huge numbers of operators wanting to go into certain areas? How do you police the fact that there may be a space and that 10 or 15 different food van operators want to operate out of that single space at the one time?

Mr PICTON: Obviously, if there is a limit to the space then only a certain number of people will be able to operate in that particular area, although I would caution the fact that people have talked about whether there are going to be thousands of these things running around. If you put it into the perspective of what happens in Adelaide City Council at the moment, where there is something like 30 and they have not necessarily given out all the permits that are available at the moment, I do not think we are going to be seeing anything like the numbers that have been put out by those people who are fearmongering about this bill.

I think local councils will be well equipped to look at what their particular local areas are and to make sure that they have spaces available in areas that might not be well trafficked or might not be well-decked out in terms of fixed food businesses and to make sure that they can properly regulate those across those areas. I do not think we are going to see the sorts of problems that you are suggesting in your question.

Mr GRIFFITHS: My real concern is that it is a bit of a recipe for disaster because you are putting a lot of faith in operators who are paying a fee. They want to go to locations where they believe there is a revenue opportunity, as do others who show an entrepreneurial spirit and want to go to the same place, whereas at the moment, you are saying that the number that go there are limited by the spaces available and because there are no time limits in place, other than presumably parking time limits, on which we will get some clarification later.

If someone wants to be there for the lunchtime trade, 11 until 2-ish or thereabouts, at potentially a high-traffic area, do they get there at 3 o'clock in the morning and save that spot or can they be moved on? If they are moved on, by whom, and is there a cost or penalty associated with that? I am not sure how this works in that case, particularly as you have talked a lot about city activities, which is where the greater challenge will exist.

Mr PICTON: I think that last point is particularly important in that, realistically, this problem you are articulating is really only going to apply in a couple of high-traffic areas, and the city is probably chief among them and it already has mechanisms through the Adelaide City Council scheme where it deals with this.

They work with the food truck operators where, for instance, only a couple of spaces may be available in Victoria Square. They will work with the food truck operators to make sure that there is an arrangement between them and the council to make sure that they are shared around and that they are used on different days by different people. There is nothing in our regulations or our legislation that stop councils working with those food trucks on the local level, particularly if there are those sorts of issues.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I need clarification because potentially multiple permits can be issued. That is appropriate, I understand that, but how do you control the number who try to take up usage of it? That is what I am unsure about. Yes, council can determine local rules, even though they must grant the permit, and different councils may potentially have different rules in place even though they have tried to create a consistent set of rules. We still have not heard a response that actually satisfies the concerns that we have on this.

Mr PICTON: If you look at the Adelaide City Council where, as I said earlier, this would be the most likely eventuality for such an occasion to occur, their policies—which would be quite consistent with our legislation—state that they want people to move between different areas on different days to make sure that there are changing spots for people across the local council area. It really is up to the local councils, if those issues arise, to make sure that there is a scheme in place to work with the local food truck vendors, as the Adelaide City Council does right at the moment, to manage that issue.

Mr KNOLL: You have said that councils cannot limit the number of permits, you have said that councils cannot talk about what type of food, and you have said that councils cannot limit operating hours, and you want to incentivise food trucks. But what happens when you have 20 or 30 food trucks that want to vie for the one place, especially when you consider that there will be some good peak times?

In the Barossa, I am sure that every food van operator who applies to the local council will want to be on the side of the road when the Tanunda Christmas parade happens. You could conceivably have a number of operators. Given the fact that you have also limited the cost, the fee structure—you have capped the fee structure—essentially you have no way to be able to price spots that are potentially more lucrative than others.

Do you envisage that there will be a lucky dip, that councils will have to pull the names out of a hat to try to be fair? What sort of certainty does that give to businesses? You talked previously about the fact that you want lower capital investment start-up businesses to start. Can I tell you as someone who has built food vans and also built shop fits, food vans are not cheap. If someone invests $100,000 or even $50,000 or $60,000 in a food van, you are essentially giving them no guarantee of being able to trade anywhere, especially if through this you incentivise the oversupply of food trucks into a certain area.

Mr PICTON: I think absolutely what we are doing is making sure that food trucks can operate when they get a permit. At the moment, food trucks are unable to get permits across most council areas in South Australia. I think what we will see is most council areas identifying significant areas that might not be on main roads but might be next to parks or outside of towns or outside of the main shopping districts, where food trucks can operate.

This is what has happened interstate. You can look at various councils in Melbourne that have large food truck schemes that operate there. People will go to those areas, not because they are necessarily already there but because there is such an attraction for going to these vans and being part of these new food experiences and so it does not have to be on a main road to be attractive to the area.

If the suggestion is that somehow we should put in our regulations or our legislation some sort of scheme to manage what I think would be a very rare eventuality of, as you said, 30 food trucks wanting to use one particular spot, I think that would be over-regulation for what could be very easily worked out on a local level by local councils in the same way that Adelaide City Council has worked that out. If they have 30 or 40 trucks registered under their scheme, if they all wanted to use Victoria Square at the same time, then they would have the same issue as you are articulating; whereas they have worked out a way of working with their food trucks on a local level to manage that issue. They would still be able to do that under our legislation and regulation.

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