HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-09-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 July 2019.)

Mr DULUK (Waite) (15:43): I rise to speak briefly on the Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill to add a few words and a small contribution on this matter. Back in 2016, His Honour Tim Anderson QC began a review into liquor licensing in South Australia. About 129 recommendations were put forward in the review. Some three or almost four years later, we are dealing with the tail end, some rats and mice issues and some legacy issues from that review.

We are looking at a new structure going forward in the way liquor licensing is managed in South Australia, and it is important that we get this right. The hospitality industry is such an important employer of South Australians and makes a huge economic contribution. Whether it be pubs, clubs, late-night venues, hotels or restaurants, the visitor economy is a huge part of the broader South Australian economy. We really need to support those who support this fantastic industry, in my view.

As I said, there were 129 recommendations from the initial Anderson review. One of the broad measures or concerns back then—and still for many, including me—is the amount of regulation and red tape which is associated with the industry and which goes to licence holders. The review has obviously been completed but, as the legislation passes through this parliament and the work of the commission filters into the broader sector, the red tape and many of these regulations and things that were restrictive and burdensome can be removed for licence holders.

We want to ensure that we have a fantastic nightlife economy in South Australia and that we provide night-time safety for many people who frequent Adelaide's small bars, pubs and nightclubs. The laws governing liquor licensing and licensed premises should help facilitate growing businesses and not restrict patrons or licensees. We want to promote South Australia, especially in the area of tourism and the businesses that flow on from that, and show that our state is indeed a vibrant place to live, work and visit. I believe that many measures in the bill, and more broadly many of the recommendations from the Anderson review, assist in that process.

At the time of the review there were several key aims, and some of them were looking at assessing the adequacy, effectiveness and relevance of the licensing regime, identifying improvements to modernise the licensing regime and reflect current day community standards. Over time, standards in the community and the way that we consume alcohol and interact in licensed venues has certainly changed. If you go back a generation, larger pubs and clubs were the norm, especially for night-time hospitality, but we see today in 2019 that the prevalence of small bars and that sort of licensing issue is de jour at the moment.

Of course, I heard on radio this morning that Councillor Franz Knoll from the Adelaide city council is looking at a review, and I think that there is a motion before the Adelaide city council tonight to look at some of the smoking laws on Hindley Street and how they relate to some of the shisha shops that operate on Hindley Street. We are constantly looking at reviewing the way we licence entertainment precincts, as I said, reflecting current day community attitudes, promoting greater business flexibility and encouraging new, bold and dynamic business models.

The recent review of liquor licensing in South Australia recommended sweeping changes to licensing fees through the introduction of a risk-based model. The new fees will come into effect for new licences from November this year. Existing licensees transitioning to the new system will not be affected by the fee change until licences are renewed in mid 2020.

The fees under this model are calculated based on a number of factors, including licence class capacity, trading hours, high-risk activities, high-risk locations, sale of liquor for consumption off premises and event endorsement. The current licensing system will be reduced from 12 to eight categories. More broadly, these categories are general and hotel, on premise, restaurant and catering, residential, club, small venue, liquor production and sales and packaged liquor sales.

Small venues have previously been given a reduced licence fee, and going forward there will be a new $425 base fee, which will reflect the development of small venues in our state, especially in what are deemed to be high-risk precincts, such as, I am guessing, Hindley Street, and align their fees with other similar venues across South Australia. The bill in many respects allows the small bar industry to continue to grow and, of course, maintains guidelines and safety for patrons, encouraging a safe and social night-time culture.

The bill is also looking at fees in regard to our clubs. A fee will not be applied to existing clubs as it is only for the sale of liquor to the public for consumption. Once the legislative changes are fully operational, clubs will be able to apply for an authorisation to sell liquor to the public for consumption. Only then will the consumption off premises risk fee apply to that club. Also, venues that have gaming machines will not be charging a gaming risk fee.

If I can just get back to the small licence fee and where we see nightlife in South Australia, over the weekend and in the preceding weeks in New South Wales there has been a debate about the late night code and also what are commonly known as lockout laws. It is very interesting to see that in New South Wales, in Sydney in particular, the Berejiklian government is looking to scrap the lockout laws through metropolitan Sydney, except for the Darlinghurst area. Obviously, we have essentially a lockout regime here in South Australia, and I hope that, once Anderson is bedded down and this review is bedded down, we can come back and revisit this issue in South Australia.

Recently, someone recounted a story to me that they were out a few Saturday nights ago enjoying themselves at a venue when all of a sudden it hit 2am and the venue was closed. This person and her friends spilled out onto Hindley Street and were all looking for a cab at the one moment. This was similar with all the other clubs on Hindley Street on that particular night.

One of the issues that we are seeing with the lockout regime at the moment is the way that clubs and night venues cease trading at a particular time. There is an influx of individuals at one point, by and large well-behaved patrons, looking for a taxi or an Uber to get home. I think that is one of the unintended consequences of lockout laws at the moment. More broadly, there is an issue of choice as well, in terms of whether citizens have the right to regulate their own behaviour to the extent that it does not impinge on the rights of other individuals.

The hospitality industry, which obviously the bill before us looks to promote, regulates and licences, creates a fantastic avenue of employment for so many South Australians. More importantly, it is not just what the hospitality industry does for general employment but what organisations such as the AHA do in terms of training and apprenticeships. I know this government has a huge program to promote apprentices and apprenticeships in South Australia in all industries, whether it be shipbuilding, racing or the hospitality and catering industry. The role that our TAFEs and other training providers play in this industry is very important.

It is a great employer of young people as well. A legacy issue of 16 years of hard Labor is many young people leaving South Australia. I know that creating the right nightlife environments in the city is playing its bit to ensure that Adelaide remains a top 10 most livable city in the world. In June this year, the Australian Hotels Association had its awards for excellence in the South Australian hotel industry. I would like to recognise some fantastic venues for winning awards.

These include The Crafers Hotel, which shares a common border with my electorate and my colleague the member for Heysen's electorate. It is a fantastic establishment. It is a great common border and a great hotel up there in Crafers, which was recognised as the Best Overall Hotel in South Australia for the second year in a row. Mount Lofty House, which I believe is in the member for Heysen's electorate—

Mr Teague: Almost.

Mr DULUK: Almost. It is in the member for Bragg's electorate. Mount Lofty House received two awards: Best Deluxe Accommodation and Best Restaurant in the accommodation division. The Uraidla Hotel is definitely in the member for Kavel's electorate—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: No, it's not. It's actually in Morialta.

Mr DULUK: —in the member for Morialta's electorate. It is all the fantastic pubs in the Hills that are doing very well. The Uraidla Hotel won the award for Environmental and Energy Efficiency Practice. Electra House, in the member for Adelaide's electorate, won Best Restaurant in the general division and also Recent Refurbishment of a Hotel. Some of the other winners include The Innamincka Hotel for Best Tourism and Regional Promotion and Sparkke at the Whitmore, which won Best Redevelopment Hotel. As we are trying to encourage business in South Australia, it is so important to provide the right framework for publicans, business owners or entrepreneurs to redevelop, and for the adaptive re-use of old buildings.

Certainly, the project at the Whitmore is one of those great adaptive re-use projects where an old pub that has been sitting idle for many years has had an investment to rejuvenate it. It certainly has had a change of clientele, and I believe it does a little bit of microbrewing on site as well. They have their own label of ales and the like. That is the type of investment in South Australia that we need in the hospitality region.

Another winner from the AHA awards, for boutique superior hotel accommodation was the Stirling Hotel, very much in the member for Heysen's electorate as well. East End Cellars won the award for best casual dining room.

Mr Pederick: Michael Andrew Arthur.

Mr DULUK: Michael Andrew Arthur.

Mr Pederick: I went to school with him.

Mr DULUK: He went to school with the member for Hammond and is a constituent of mine. Of course, the Earl of Leicester, which is another fantastic hotel, won the judges commendation. The Torrens Arms Hotel, which is in my electorate, won the judges commendation for bistro/casual dining. Right across Adelaide, Greater Adelaide and South Australia, the hotel industry provides a wonderful outlet for South Australians to enjoy themselves and be fed and watered. It is also a great place to employ South Australians, to create jobs and to train our next generation of people in the hospitality industry.

To that end, South Australia's hospitality and bar scenes have evolved and grown in the past few years. We want to see that continued growth in our nightlife, in creating jobs as well as supporting local businesses and the hospitality industry more broadly. The government is committed to ensuring that the liquor industry regulations are undertaken in the most efficient and effective manner, prompting growth and sustainability while also minimising any potential harm that could result from the misuse of alcohol and, indeed, gaming. The changes that we are debating in the parliament this week will benefit the industry through smarter regulation, and I think that is good news for South Australian businesses.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (15:56): I rise to speak in relation to the Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2019 and indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition in relation to this bill. To begin with, I indicate that the Labor Party broadly is in support of this miscellaneous legislation. It is the second batch of miscellaneous legislation that I have dealt with today.

We are still undertaking some discussions and consultation in relation to this bill. We are also interested in seeking some answers in the committee stage of the debate today, so we will be reserving our final position between the houses, particularly in regard to several points of concern or of question in terms of the details of this legislation. I am sure that discussions will continue between the Attorney-General and the shadow attorney-general, the Hon. Kyam Maher in the other place, as that work continues.

I would like to thank the staff of the Attorney-General's Department for the briefing that they provided the shadow attorney-general and his staff on the bill. We will put on record some of the advice that was provided in that briefing and ask the Attorney-General to confirm that advice. We will also be asking a number of additional and supplementary questions in relation to that.

The bill amends the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, making mostly technical changes but also a few more substantive changes. For the most part, this bill is tinkering. There is no vision in this legislation. There is no plan. This is not a substantial piece of reform or undertaking to drive our state forward. A range of technical miscellaneous amendments are being made for the second bill today, although this one is a bit longer than the one-page bill that we had earlier today.

Unfortunately, we do know that this Liberal government is no friend of the small bars or hotels of a vibrant Adelaide. This has been a pattern over a number of years in this state and this city. One of the important changes that was made in this state over recent years, particularly in terms of the vibrancy of the City of Adelaide, was made by the previous government in relation to small venues, small bars legislation and licences. That was enabled by the previous government. Particularly of note was the work of the former attorney-general and minister for consumer affairs (Hon. John Rau) in this regard, which led to a proliferation of small bars throughout Adelaide.

These venues were, by and large, very difficult to operate under the previous licensing arrangements. It was very difficult to obtain a licence, very difficult to be able to afford a licence and very difficult to meet the requirements and competition requirements that were set forth. That held back a lot of people who wanted to set up businesses in this state from being able to establish those businesses, and it also held back the benefits of having those venues and small bars to our city and its vibrancy. On the whole, they are also lower risk venues compared to setting up large venues. Setting up small bars with small licences is of lower risk to the community as well, so this had a wide range of benefits.

Of course, when we proposed that legislation, there was a tsunami of opposition from a variety of people, including the Liberal Party, and in the end they had to be fought into backing it. It was a very significant fight to do that. I am glad that legislation was passed, and we can see the benefits across Adelaide at the moment. Unfortunately, we now have a government who were initially very hostile to that reform agenda and who are now being hostile to this vibrant sector—a number of venues in this state—through their changes to the budget.

The Premier, the Attorney-General and Treasurer Rob Lucas presided over the introduction of a huge hike in liquor licensing fees in the recent state budget. These are going to hit a number of venues particularly hard—venues we want to see in a vibrant Adelaide. These places are changing perceptions of Adelaide. They are changing the way our city is being seen. It is a city that does not close at 6 o'clock and does not stop, and it is one that young people see as an exciting place to be.

These are exactly the sorts of places that I presume the South Australian Tourism Commission were trying to highlight in their 'old mate' ad, despite the fact that it was the most abysmal failure of a tourism campaign that we have ever seen in this state. You just have to speak to a number of people involved in the industry about what they think of the changes—the astronomical fee increases we have seen from this government.

Owner of Sugar nightclub, Driller Jet Armstrong, has a sixfold increase in his licence fees, and he has called them de facto lockout laws. If you open past a certain hour, the Attorney-General, Treasurer and Premier are going to whack you significantly more—in Mr Armstrong's case, more than six times the fee. In his case, he owns a business that does not have a massive turnover and is not a massive venue. Basically, if he has to continue to pay those fees, it makes the business unviable.

Let's remember that this government came to office saying they were going to lower costs for businesses. Time and time again in this state budget, we have seen that the reverse is true. Costs are going up and small business owners who run those venues are being hit with those increased costs. A number of owners of businesses in the laneways around Parliament House have talked about the impact it will have on them as well. A number of these small bars that have operated under the licensing scheme are going to be hit significantly harder by the increased fees the Attorney-General is levelling at them.

All those concerns are out there in the community. All those concerns are being heard. I think there is going to be a significant level of campaigning on this issue over the coming months, not only by small business owners but also by the South Australian community, which wants to see those venues continue to operate. This legislation could have been the Attorney-General's opportunity to address the concerns she has created through the massive increase in fees for those venues, but there is nothing whatsoever in this bill that will alleviate those concerns. As I flagged, I will go through briefly the clauses in this bill and outline our understanding of them.

Clause 4 of the bill provides the licensing authority the power to vary or revoke an exemption that has been granted by the commissioner or court pursuant to a code of practice. The advice provided by the Attorney-General's Department indicates that currently there is no way to vary or revoke those conditions. Clause 5 of the bill allows for breaches to be dealt with by a fine or fee. The advice also provided by the department indicates that there is no way to vary or revoke those conditions at the moment.

Clauses 6 and 13 introduce a new type of licence, where interstate licensed liquor retailers can obtain a liquor licence for mail order or internet-ordered alcohol in South Australia. We understand that the Northern Territory has a similar scheme in place at the moment. I think that there are a few questions there in terms of why this is something we are seeking to operate and what the implications will be of allowing those interstate businesses to operate for South Australian businesses. Whether this could this drive out South Australian businesses is something I am keen to explore in the committee stage of this debate.

Clauses 7, 9, 10 and 11 amend the hours during which alcohol can be delivered as well as change the language so that legislation refers to 'delivered' rather than to 'despatched and delivered'. We understand that these amendments are being made at the request of Retail Drinks Australia and reflect the national code. Clause 8 endorses a recommendation from Mr Anderson's review so that liquor can be sold to a resident of the licensed premises for consumption on or off the premises.

Clause 12 clarifies that annual fees can be charged for short-term licences. This is a clause we particularly have questions about. How much will those fees be that will be charged for short-term licences? Which events or organisations are going to be charged those fees for those short-term events? It is obviously important that our liquor licensing laws have the provision available for short-term licences. There are any number of events that require a short-term licence.

There might be pop-up type occasions as well. I am just thinking of Beach Road at Christies Beach, near my electorate, which has had liquor licensed events or, most recently, the Port Noarlunga foreshore. These are the types of events that perhaps these short-term licences would be applicable to . What fees does the Attorney-General have in mind for them? What will be the process by which people will be getting those fees?

Particularly when you are thinking about a number of community events that this might apply to, whether it is multicultural festivals, whether it be food truck festivals or the like, how much are those fees going to be and what limitations will be placed in relation to the operation of those community events?

Clause 14 provides that the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner can refuse a name change for a licensed premises. The advice provided by the Attorney-General's Department indicates that currently there is no power to refuse a name change. It is clear that there would be circumstances under which a name change should be refused—for example, if the proposed name was offensive. It might be interesting to explore whether there have been particular instances of this that the government is aware of and whether there are names that currently have been changed that the Attorney-General does find offensive.

Clause 14 also requires a licensee to inform the commissioner of any changes to their name, address or contact details. We are advised that clause 15 is consequential and that clause 16 does work for clause 5, which, as I mentioned earlier, allows for breaches to be dealt with by a fine or a fee. Clause 17 changes the time frame for revoking a payment of an annual fee. Clause 18 is a streamlining provision which allows that, where someone reduces their licence in terms of hours or capacity or even the supply of liquor, that person can simply inform the commissioner rather than apply to the commissioner, who can then vary the licence. Clause 19 is consequential.

The effect of clause 20 is to delete the words 'by any person with a genuine interest', which has the effect of allowing the commissioner to publish on their website copies of applications for liquor licences, which I think would be appropriate, given that I am sure it would have broad public interest in terms of their seeing those applications.

Clause 21 fixes provisions relating to clubs amalgamating. We are advised that previously, on the amalgamation of two clubs, the gaming licence would be automatically revoked. This clause addresses that issue. Clause 22 introduces a maximum penalty of $2,500 and expiation fees of $210 for breaches of a direct sales licensee's obligations. I would be interested to know if there were any previous penalties, if there were any previous issues, and the ability of the law to address those breaches.

Clause 23 relates to the display of liquor licences on licensed premises, including allowing display on an electronic screen or device, and I might just take a moment to say something about my own personal thoughts on that. I have always thought that this is an area that should have some reform, and I will be interested to see how far this reform goes in terms of what the Attorney-General is proposing.

A lot of licensed premises spend a lot of money establishing themselves and establishing their internal fit-out which, in some cases I am sure, would be astronomically expensive. Of course we in this parliament—and I am sure these provisions date back many, many decades—require certain signs and notices to be published in those premises. As wonderful as I am sure the graphics department of the consumer and business affairs department is, those signs tend to be hideously ugly and detract from some of the expert and amazingly expensive fit-out of these premises.

I have often thought there should be a bit of flexibility in terms of the style in which those signs can be established. They should obviously be clear, they should obviously be able to be read by everyone who is in the premises, but whether they have to be on white cardboard in blue lettering in Times New Roman at 36 point is, I think, questionable.

I note this says that electronic screens can be used as well, which is good for displaying licences and notices and the like. Many of the venues you go into have rotating PowerPoint-style displays where different images will display, and I question whether that means the TV has to display that image in perpetuity or whether it means it could be slide 1 of 30 that appears on that screen. Does it apply to the display of just the liquor licence or does it also apply to some of the other warnings that premises have to include as well? If so, why is that the case?

Clause 24 enables records to be held out of the state. There are a couple of questions there as well, in terms of why that is being done and whether it makes it any more difficult for recourse to those records if they need to be obtained by the commissioner, the courts, the police or anybody else. Obviously we are now entering a world of cloud computing where any number of us, including the parliament, have access to cloud computing solutions where records are held in the cloud. Is that what this is trying to address here? What is the safe gap to make sure those records are able to be accessed when they need to be?

I reiterate that the Labor Party has general support for the miscellaneous provisions of this miscellaneous bill; however, there are still a number of questions we are keen to pursue. There are a number of things we are keen to get further advice about and have further consultation on with industry and other groups. We remain concerned about what the government is proposing in terms of significant increases in fees for a number of venues in our city; sadly, we will see a number of businesses close despite the government's promise—which has been completely discarded—when it came to office of having lower fees for businesses.

With those words, I end my remarks and look forward to the committee stage and discussion of this bill.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (16:14): I want to make a brief contribution to the second reading stage of this bill and flag to the house that I will be making a small amendment to it. Alcohol abuse of course is a direct result of liquor consumption. One of the effects of alcohol abuse can be antisocial behaviour, which can cause great harm in the community. Also, drinkers who can go on to become heavy drinkers come from all age groups, with many young people feeling obliteration on a night out is a rite of passage. Education is one of the great tools in encouraging positive behaviour.

I note the report of Tim Anderson QC some years ago passed a recommendation that may have followed on from a submission from a group in Western Australia, the Alcohol Advertising Review Board, which was an initiative of the McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth and the Cancer Council of Western Australia. These people say that even a sip of red wine exposes you to similar risks associated with tobacco and asbestos.

Since that time, further research has come to hand, saying that it is indeed true that, while moderation is the key, those who abuse alcohol and overconsume need help to moderate. The amendment that I plan to put to the house today will pick up in a very small way a minor change to promote the use of words around the advertising of drinking 'responsibly' rather than drinking 'wisely'. At the time of the Anderson report I sought a similar change, which was interpreted as 'extremely broad', and it followed the removal of alcohol advertising from buses in the state. If that removal was considered as acceptable, reasonable and moderate, I am putting it to the house that this will be the same sort of argument I will put today to promote my amendment.

The only aim of this measure is to educate. The self-regulating, national DrinkWise initiative can happily coexist with any measure here today to educate and encourage moderation. I put it to the house that there is definitely a difference between the words 'responsibly' and 'wisely'. That is why the gambling industry—and that is exactly what alcohol and gambling are: they are both industries—where addictive behaviours affect the minority of those who are involved in the industries but who do need to moderate, has referred to gambling responsibly rather than wisely.

I put to the house that the same measure would equally apply happily with alcohol and not cause any damage to anyone; rather, it would encourage people to moderate behaviour. I look forward to putting that amendment to the house in the committee stage.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:17): I rise to support the Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2019. Basically, most of the amendments are technical in nature and they are principally in support of the recommendations arising from the Anderson liquor licensing review. The final stage of the liquor review act is to commence on 18 November this year, with all but one of the amendments commencing at the same time.

The key aspects in the detail of the bill include to reflect omitted portions of Mr Anderson's recommendations in respect of on-premises licences, namely, that liquor is able to be sold to a resident of the licensed premises for consumption on or off the premises and to confer power on the commissioner to refuse a name change for licensed premises, for example, in circumstances where a name may be misleading or offensive.

There is currently no such power, and this amendment was requested by the commissioner. It also requires a licensee to inform the commissioner of any changes to their contact details and to provide for fines and expiation fees on breach of codes of conduct to reflect the level of potential risk and significance of the breach. There are currently no penalties for a breach.

The bill also permits the imposition of annual fees for short-term licences and the amendment of provisions relating to the amalgamation of licensed clubs with respect to gaming machine licences. Currently, when clubs amalgamate, their gaming machine licences are forfeited. The bill clarifies the provisions relating to the display of copies of liquor licences on the licensed premises, including that a copy be readily visible to members of the public and is up to date.

It enables records of liquor transactions to be kept out of the state, for example, in servers located interstate. It enables the prescribed person to require production of proof of age only where the prescribed person reasonably suspects that the other person is a minor, which was the position that existed prior to 24 September 2018 when section 115 removed this as a precondition.

Currently, that clause operates to empower a prescribed person to require another person to produce evidence of their age if the other person is on, about to enter or in the vicinity of licensed premises, or is or has recently been in possession of liquor. The commissioner considers this power as excessive, and no concerns were raised about reverting to the status quo during the consultation process.

Part of the legislation is also about providing for a streamlined process whereby interstate licensed liquor retailers can obtain a licence in this state. It also confers on the commissioner and the Licensing Court the ability to exempt the licensee from a mandatory condition or rule that applies to a licence, other than conditions imposed under section 42 of the Liquor Licensing Act, and the power to remove these exemptions. Examples may include the general requirement to have a responsible person on the premises or to allow for minors. He currently does not have this power.

The bill also enables licensees to simply notify the commissioner if the licensee has reduced the number of trading hours or the capacity of the premises or no longer trades under endorsements previously applicable to the licence, as opposed to submitting a formal application to the commissioner for approval.

The bill clarifies and changes the provision to enable authorised licensees to deliver alcohol between 8am and 10pm, as opposed to dispatching and delivering between 8am and 9pm. This change was suggested during consultation with Retail Drinks Australia. Feedback was sought on the bill from the Law Society, South Australia Police and industry bodies, including the Australian Hotels Association, clubs, the South Australian Wine Industry Association, the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association, the Independent Retailers Association, Retail Drinks Australia and Food South Australia. Overall, there was general support for the bill.

I note that the member for Waite recognised some of the people and venues that received awards in the Australian Hotels Association South Australian awards the other day. I just want to note one venue in my electorate, the Pretoria Hotel at Mannum, which received the award for Live Music Venue—Country, so well done to them. It is a great hotel in my electorate.

There are many others, whether they are at Pinnaroo, with the Golden Grain or the Pinnaroo Hotel, or through Parilla and Lameroo. We get to the Riverside Hotel and the railway hotel in Tailem Bend; the Bridgeport, the Swanport and the Murray Bridge Hotel in Murray Bridge; the Pretoria and the Mannum Hotel at Mannum, the Milang Hotel—I am sure I am going to miss some and I may hear about that. We have the Bridge Hotel in Langhorne Creek and also many clubs and other venues right throughout the electorate. Sadly, the Canberra Hotel recently closed its doors, but hopefully they will open again one day. There are obviously some licensed bottle shops throughout the area as well.

I was interested in the member for Kaurna's remarks that we are making it so hard with liquor licensing in South Australia that people are just shutting their doors. I just want to reflect on John Meek, who, for probably at least four decades, has operated licensed venues in South Australia, not the least of which—I cannot remember which order they came in—was the Ranch or the Oasis at Murray Bridge; it was the same venue. It is a private house now and has been for a while, but 35 years ago that was the place to go outside Murray Bridge.

John Meek has since moved on from there. He did have interests in the Dog and Duck on Hindley Street. The Woolshed has been very good to him, and I want to note his multimillion dollar investment in rebirthing Downtown, where you used to be able to go and play Space Invaders years ago.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Many years ago.

Mr PEDERICK: A couple of years ago. Can you remember that, member for Stuart?

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: I can, but it was long before any of us were elected.

Mr PEDERICK: It was not recent, no. It is a great game. This venue, from my understanding, has a licence for 2½ thousand people. There are a range of venues, and I will reflect on Hindley Street for a moment. Some close down, but they are usually rebirthed as something else. I believe the Woolshed was the old Jules Bar many years ago. John Meek is one person I am reflecting on because I know him reasonably well. He has put his heart and soul into running entertainment venues. He has laid it well and truly on the line, especially in his recent venture into Downtown. If people say that nobody is investing in licensed venues, that is just not right. There are many others around the state.

It is a different world that we live in. Sadly, things have changed with time. We have issues around lockout laws and other things. Plastic comes on the scene very early in the night. It is a bit sad to see that society appears to have changed. Sometimes there is trouble, but I believe it is not related just to alcohol. We have to make sure we have up-to-date legislation, and that is why legislation overall has changed over time.

Sadly, I am old enough to remember the days before breathalysers were used by police on the roads, and they have been around for decades now. This seems to go right against the sale of liquor when driving around the country, but many years ago, before we had six or seven-day trading, you had to be a bona fide traveller and have travelled a certain distance to be able to buy alcohol. It goes against drink-driving, etc., but thankfully those days are well behind us.

It is good that we have had the Anderson review and that the Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2019 is going through the house. I was discussing lockout laws a little while ago. I think 3am is the time that doors shut. It is very rare that I am out at that hour these days. I note that New South Wales either have or are relaxing some of those lockout laws, apart from at some of their main entertainment areas around Kings Cross. Things can change over time. As a government and society, we have to monitor the situation to make sure we do the best we can with entertainment venues.

I note something that the current police commissioner said on the radio the other day. Someone was reflecting on some of the unfortunate incidents that occasionally happen on Hindley Street. The commissioner said, 'Yes, we could shut down Hindley Street, but then the whole sector would just move somewhere else.' He basically was saying that we should manage things where they are for the main late-night area in the city, controlling it as best we can. Things have changed markedly over time. We see hotels open at eight in the morning, and some pretty well go 24 hours bar the lockout laws. We need to work through this place and with society to make sure we put the appropriate laws in place.

I commend all my licensed premises owners, and I also want to acknowledge the Bridgeport Hotel and the Tregoning group, which is about to knock it down and build a new six-storey, four-star hotel in Murray Bridge that will supply 99 rooms with four-star accommodation. They have been building the new drive-through bottle shop and also the temporary venue for the gaming machines while they have been building the new venue. I believe that the knockdown and rebuild of the new Bridgeport Hotel will be happening fairly soon and comes on the back of a lot of development of venues in my electorate.

Obviously, they are not all hotels, but, as far as clubs are concerned, we have the Murray Bridge Racing Club, which recently opened a $35 million investment; we have the Bridgeport Hotel, which is a $40 million investment; we have The Bend Motorsport Park at Tailem Bend, where Sam Shahin will only admit to the first $160 million invested and the Rydges hotel there has 100 rooms; and, in my electorate, at Murray Bridge we also have also the new greyhound track and a licensed venue, which is an investment of around $8 million.

There is lots going on and lots that will happen into the future with these multimillion dollar investments into the area, and I salute everyone for making those investments in my electorate. With those few words, I commend the bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:31): I thank the member for Kaurna as the opposition spokesperson, and the members for Hammond, Florey and Waite for their contributions. I am always entertained by the member for Hammond's contribution. Can I say that I was recently in his electorate attending the opening of the racecourse. I think they could now bet on just about anything in his electorate they have so many different venues. It is a magnificent facility, and I commend him for his tireless advocacy to bring industry to his electorate.

I can say that I have attended the motorsport park, which, of course, has had a contribution by government but which is a project by the Shahin family. I attended a major event there at the invitation of the owners. I cannot say that I am a petrol head, but I handed awards to people who had been riding around on motorcycles. They looked like they were about to kill themselves, but nevertheless it is obviously a very exciting sport, and again I commend those, like this family, who have made a significant investment—in this particular case, in the member for Hammond's electorate.

To other members who have acknowledged liquor licensed outlets and venues in their electorates, I think it is important that we do acknowledge the industries that are regulated in relation to the sale of alcohol. Obviously, the hotels and their proprietors—the men and women of South Australia who operate these venues—play a very important role in both the distribution of alcohol and the provision of a pleasant and protected environment in which patrons can be entertained.

With that, there are parties who are providing services directly. There are outlets covered by stakeholders, such as Retail Drinks Australia and South Australian Independent Retailers. These are organisations, together with the SA Wine Industry Association and the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association, that represent people in the industry who provide alcohol one way or another. We value the support of their members in the South Australian community and the economic and social benefit that they provide but, most importantly, when there is responsible regulation in relation to the sale and provision of alcohol everyone wins.

Some comment has been made about the concerns of the member for Kaurna and his apparent concern about the Liberal Party's failure to join in the vibrant investment of small bars in this state. I might remind him that, notwithstanding his claims of hostility, we have supported those in this industry.

Furthermore, the former attorney-general, who progressed reforms in this area to enable other licence options to be available to streamline the licensing regime for South Australia, was attorney-general from 2010. There was not even a review report until 2016 and then subsequent legislation. Quite frankly, if the former government really gave a toss about the advance of developing industries, including small bars in this state, they would have acted a lot more expeditiously, but they did not.

I might remind him that, when it came to having the review on lockout laws, not only did we have Mr Anderson's review but we had the valuable contribution made by the South Australian police, who are also a very important party in relation to any regulation we set because they are the enforcers. They are the investigators in relation to the adherence of this regulatory area. We were shielded from, or excluded from, even being able to see a copy of their submission.

For months, there was a refusal on the part of the former government to even show us that. When we eventually did see it, looking at the context, for example, on lockout laws—Mr Anderson's recommendation was that it was too early to make a determination about whether the lockout laws were successful or not—the very party that was probably closest and most important to the consideration and deliberations of this parliament ultimately was the view of the South Australian police, and that submission was kept hidden from us.

After a public outcry, eventually the former government did make it available for us to see and it did suggest, according to them, that only a short period had elapsed since the introduction and that therefore, in their view, further time needed to elapse. Mr Anderson picked that up. On this side of the house, we think that everyone in the parliament needs to be able to have that matter before them for the purposes of considering these reviews.

I am appalled at the approach the former government took on this, so please, member for Kaurna, do not come in here and start preaching to us about the failings on behalf of the opposition in relation to the advance of practical and important reforms in liquor licensing regulation. We have been at the table all the time. We are happy to advance it. Ultimately, seven years into the life of the former attorney-general, we finally got a bill passed through this parliament, so please do not lecture us about advancing something and having some passion.

Nevertheless, the bill passed. The one key area of decision to be considered on the recommendations of Mr Anderson was a new fee structure in line with the fact that there would be a streamlining of different licences that would apply under the new regime. The former attorney decided that that would be kicked down the road. As the Premier said today in question time, it was one of many decisions the previous government kicked under the rug and did not deal with.

Well, we have dealt with it and consistent with that, as was announced in the budget this year, we have adopted a regime of fees which is actually less than the recommendation of Mr Anderson in his report and which has been assiduously looked at and consulted on by the commissioner, Mr Soulio, with the relevant parties to work through a regime to enable the implementation of that structure in November this year for new parties coming into the industry and some time next year for existing licensees.

That is what the reality is. In the course of that long process, the commissioner in particular has identified a number of areas that need to be clarified and/or considered because either it is not appropriate that they be in regulation and/or they have been overlooked in relation to the preparation of the reforms in this area, and, secondly, some of the aspects that have been picked up that were not advanced otherwise in relation to the Anderson review.

This is an important piece of legislation. It is not tinkering with technical and miscellaneous amendments. There are substantial amendments in this bill. I think that it is important that the member for Kaurna appreciate the significance of this legislation and why we are needing to finish off a job that should have been dealt with by the previous government but which, yet again, we have been left to tidy up.

Can I place on the record that Mr Driller Jet Armstrong has been to see me and the commissioner; in fact, I have employed his services. I have actually never been to his establishment, he was disappointed to hear me say, but I have actually employed his services over the years for my own functions.

Mr Basham: More research, Attorney?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Indeed. I can categorically say that Driller is very competent in relation to his provision of music services for the events that he attended at my request, but I do not know the details of his establishment. As a result of that meeting, we certainly have put in place discussions with the commissioner, who I think was present at that meeting as well, to assist Mr Armstrong to consider how he might better structure his business—which is entirely his matter—so that he might attract a significantly lower fee.

These matters have been discussed and, as I understand it, they are still being canvassed. So, please, member for Kaurna, pick up some little piece out of a headline if you like, but when you come into the parliament make sure you have the full facts before you start casting those sort of aspersions.

Vibrant SA, as I am advised by my excellent adviser, has of course been raised also as a stakeholder. It was, frankly, a body that was around to represent late-night venues after the announcement and fee changes, but it is defunct and it does not even have a website anymore. Again, it is fairly important for all of the members to keep up to speed with what is actually happening out there in relation to this space.

There was a matter specifically raised as to the fees that operate in the bill. I am happy to refer to this in committee if it is preferable, but I just remind the member that, yes, on clause 12, which deals with short-term licences, the bill allows for these to have an annual fee. In a statute, we need to make the law before we implement the regulation.

For the benefit of other members, I would have thought that this would be obvious to the member, given that he has been a member of cabinet, and that he would know that the regulations would not be prepared and decided upon before the act occurs and has had the assent of the Governor post parliamentary passage. But, just in case he has forgotten, our government does things in the right order, notwithstanding the practices of the previous government, who I remember gazetting the names of people who were going to be on natural resources management boards before we had even passed the act.

There are certain standards that other governments have had. That is not the standard of this government. This government does it in the right order. We respect the parliament and I can advise the house that we have not, as a government, made any determination or asked for the preparation of regulations in relation to short-term licences prior to the assent, of course, under this legislation. I hope that clarifies the matter; otherwise, I am happy to answer any other questions in committee. I thank the member for Florey for her contribution. I have been provided with a copy of the amendment that she has tabled today, and I will refer to that in committee.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr PICTON: I am wondering if the Attorney can outline which stakeholders she consulted and the position of those stakeholders in relation to the amendments, and will she provide submissions made?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The Australian Hotels Association (SA), SAPOL, South Australian Wine Industry Association Inc., Restaurant and Catering Industry Association, and Retail Drinks Australia. My understanding is they all made some contribution and/or a lengthy submission. Further stakeholders consulted who did not provide a response were the Law Society of South Australia, Clubs SA, South Australian Independent Retailers, and Food South Australia. I am advised that was the list of stakeholders consulted.

My understanding is that information has previously been provided. In any event, it is not our practice to provide copies of those submissions, but obviously you are at liberty to approach them if they have not already sent you copies.

Mr PICTON: Can I confirm with the Attorney-General that no public health groups were consulted in relation to the drafting of this bill? If that is the case, why did the Attorney-General believe that no public health group should be consulted, given that we know that liquor licensing and the consumption of alcohol are important public health issues?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that no public health group in the direct consultation occurred. As the member would be aware, obviously the Minister for Health, as a member of cabinet, gets to view and approve any legislation, and the department is consulted through those processes. In relation to any other agency—by 'public health group' I assume you mean beyond the department—the answer is no, principally because this is not the substantive bill. These obviously are amendments that have flowed from that original tranche of legislation.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr PICTON: In relation to part 2, I understand the commencement relating to the provision creating interstate direct sales licences is being delayed beyond the statutory time frame. Why is that being delayed? Why does that need to come in much later than is set forth by the statutory interpretation legislation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised it is for two reasons; one is technology. I know that there has been discussion with the commissioner about the technology upgrades required to deal with liquor licensing generally, so one is to accommodate that, the building of the system to facilitate this new tranche. The second is to be able to provide education and advice to the other jurisdictions, consultation with them to obviously let them know what is coming.

Mr PICTON: Does the Attorney-General or the government have a plan? When would you envisage that these provisions would actually commence?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that, with the obvious rider of being subject to cabinet, we are looking at about January or February next year.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr PICTON: In relation to these exemptions, can the Attorney-General confirm that there is currently no way to vary or revoke those conditions, and, therefore, under what circumstance would this proposed power need to be used?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding is that it is not clear. As I indicated in the second reading speech, the purpose of this amendment was to confer on the commissioner and the court, to make it absolutely clear, the power to vary or revoke an exemption that had been granted by the commissioner or the court or pursuant to a code of practice but not statutory exemptions conferred by the Liquor Licensing Act itself. As I advised the parliament at the time, the commissioner considers that this will be a useful power to be able to exercise in appropriate circumstances. This is not the statutory exemptions conferred by the Liquor Licensing Act itself; this is purely in relation to the commissioner.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney-General outline who identified the need for this amendment? Was that something that was suggested by a stakeholder or internally?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I will repeat what I said about 15 seconds ago: the commissioner considers that this would be a useful power to be able to exercise in appropriate circumstances.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney-General confirm that there is currently no way to impose fines in relation to this clause?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I assume that the member is asking in relation to this exemption and the clarification that is sought by the commissioner. Your initial question was—

Mr Picton: We are on the next one now, clause 5.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Have we dealt with it?

The CHAIR: We are doing clause 5.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I beg your pardon. Could you repeat the question?

Mr PICTON: Clause 5, in relation to the code of practice, can you confirm that there is no way to impose fines at the moment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Correct; there is nothing under the codes of practice.

Mr PICTON: Attorney, under what circumstance would this proposed power need to be used?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It relates to a potential breach of a code. The codes are not with us today. If the member is seeking to identify what will be within the codes, I am happy to try to see what information can be provided between the houses, but it relates to any breaches of those codes.

Mr PICTON: Who identified the need for this amendment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The commissioner; and I can add to what I previously indicated, that I am advised there has been consultation with industry in relation to what is in these codes of practice.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr PICTON: In relation to clause 6 and mandatory conditions, what is the cost of the annual fee that could be charged for a short-term licence?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: These are fees to be set out in the regulations. Again, we need to pass the law here before we can consider those.

Mr PICTON: So there has been no consideration by the government in relation to what those fees would be? There has been no consultation with any stakeholders regarding what those fees should be?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot give the particulars of that. I am aware that the commissioner has had discussions with industry and one other stakeholder group in relation to those who are going to be involved in terms of direct sale provision. I do not have the detail of what they discussed in that regard, but I understand no regulations have been approved in relation to those fees.

Mr PICTON: Under what circumstances could such fees be charged? Does it mean that once-yearly festivals could be charged more to run their festivals?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member is perhaps confusing that issue with clause 12, which relates to short-term licences. We are talking about authorised trading in liquor. If I am wrong, perhaps the member could just indicate.

Mr PICTON: Sorry; you are right.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr PICTON: In relation to clause 7, and also in clauses 9, 10 and 11, there is a change in hours from 8am until 9pm to 8am until 10pm. Can the Attorney-General outline the rationale for that change?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised this time change has been made so that it aligns with the current provisions for the sale of packaged liquor, which is available up to 10pm.

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 11 passed.

Clause 12.

Mr PICTON: I will ask the question I asked before under the wrong clause. In relation to the fees the Attorney-General is proposing, under what circumstances could those fees be charged? Does it mean that a once-yearly festival—Glendi or some other type of festival we might have in South Australia—could be charged more to run the festival?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that this is to deal with the option of having a short-term licence. It is a new provision so, again, the regulations and resolution as to what the fee structure will be have not yet been determined. As I understand it, it is to allow for an up to five-year licence. An event such as Glendi, a Greek, annual festival, could opt to apply for it if they wished. At this stage, the particulars of any fee structure that goes with it will be considered and approved after the passage of this bill and is obviously conditional upon that.

Mr PICTON: The Attorney-General is saying that all the existing festivals, which presumably have liquor licences—whether they be Glendi, Schutzenfest, and I think Carnevale is about to be kicked off again—would also be able to operate under their existing licence provisions. If that is the case, what is the benefit or change in relation to what is being proposed under this provision? What types of events in South Australia or what types of premises would the Attorney-General envisage will be operating under this new licence provision rather than any other existing licences?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that the genesis of this proposal was from organisers of events such as those the member referred to, which are major cultural events for a particular group in the community and which have statewide and, no doubt, Australia-wide patronage. They are very important events, but they also rely on sponsorship. My understanding is that they put a submission to the effect that they are seeking some security that they are able to have a licence on an ongoing basis. This was proposed; it was considered.

Ultimately, allowing for a short-term licence of up to five years is the proposed model being presented for consideration. To my knowledge, there is nothing stopping the current operators of these events from applying for one-off event licensing. They are looking for more security presumably so they can go to their sponsors to ensure that there is a sustained period of exposure and benefit for those sponsors to invest in those festivals, which of course have very significant patronage.

Mr PICTON: In relation to the fees, the Attorney-General has outlined that we cannot talk about the fees because we have not passed the bill yet. However, I think it is important that the parliament, which is obviously considering establishing a new licence, should consider what the fees might be and the process the Attorney-General will undertake in determining those fees.

Can the Attorney-General outline the process to determine what the fee will be under this new licence, bearing in mind the giant whack-up of fees in the most recent state budget? Will she be talking to the sorts of events we have been talking about, such as Glendi, Schutzenfest and other big cultural events, about the appropriate fee level to make sure that it will not be out of reach for either those big cultural events or any number of smaller events that would seek to have a licence in South Australia?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I first address the question of what has occurred in relation to the current structure of licences and the extensive consultation that has been undertaken under this government, more particularly by the commissioner, Mr Soulio, with the stakeholders for all the other new licences that are to come into being. That is one whereby I think we have demonstrated as a new government that we are responsible and consultative.

We have introduced, as announced in the budget, an overall impact less than recommended by Mr Anderson, a matter which had to be resolved one way or the other and which the previous government refused to even deal with. That is the first thing. The second thing is that, in relation to the new processes, in particular this one, the short-term licence, this is a particular type of licence that has been sought by industry and accommodated in presenting this to the parliament as an option for them.

Quite obviously, if they felt that there was no benefit to them and that the fee structure that comes into effect after consultation is prohibitive, with too many conditions or not for them, then they will not apply for one and of course can continue to have their event-based licensing available to them. But we are coming to the parliament with this proposal based on industry saying, 'We're not a fixed-venue operator. We do have an annual event or a biannual event or whatever. We want to have security of tenure with that and not have to come back every year to seek permission to sell alcohol at our event.'

We think that is a reasonable request and we are presenting it to the parliament for consideration, but far be it from us to impose this option on parties who might see the benefits of this. That is a matter for them. If they feel that it is prohibitive, that they do not want to pay money in advance or anything of that nature, then fine: continue with what they have.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

Mr PICTON: This clause is in relation to interstate direct sales licence, which I understand is a new licence being proposed. I am wondering if the Attorney-General can outline what is the rationale for this licence. There are obviously people who currently provide wine or other types of alcohol for sale who might be based interstate and who sell to people in South Australia. What current licensing provisions are they using to do that, apart from the licence that is being proposed here?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised, very succinctly, as to what the situation is. In short, the providers of direct sales from interstate are not currently bound by our rules. They therefore have an unfair competitive advantage over those who operate in South Australia and provide direct sales. Therefore, the purpose of this whole clause is to bring them in line and require that they be compliant with those rules. I will refer to the detail of that in the second reading speech.

Mr PICTON: So, if you have a company that might be based interstate—let's say, for example, selling wine to people here in this state—you are saying at the moment that they are not licensed and therefore operating outside our rules. Just by introducing this provision and this licence, does that mean that those people in other states are forced to get this licence? If they do not get this licence, are there any penalties that could apply to them across state boundaries, or is this a situation where we need every state to introduce similar legislation so that there is some sort of national replication of that across the country, because otherwise there is no follow-up that could occur if no-one actually takes up this licence?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is quite a valid question as to whether this is something that perhaps should be replicated around the country. I will take that on notice and, in the process of conferring with the other states, let them know. That is one of the reasons there is a delayed implementation here about what the obligations are going to be. It may become clearer that we need to put this on the national agenda and see that there is some application and take-up of this by other states. I am happy to do that.

What is important here, though, is that we are setting the rules for what is to happen in relation to direct sales in South Australia. If anybody anywhere outside South Australia wants to sell into South Australia, then they need to comply with our rules. We are the party, via this parliament, who set the rules for South Australia. If we set up a structure that we think is beneficial to our state and other states follow, or if we think it has merit and we want to recommend it to them, then we are happy to follow that up.

At this stage, these are the rules that will apply for anyone who wants to sell into South Australia so that they do not have a competitive advantage over the people in South Australia who operate here and have to be compliant. It is a level playing field.

Mr PICTON: I have in my mind that a few times I have bought some wine from Vinomofo, who were established here in South Australia but, sadly, I think are now based in Melbourne. They operate a very successful business and sell a lot of South Australian wine, which is very good. For a business like that, based nationally and selling wine interstate essentially via the mail or couriers, we will establish this licence and say that they, as an interstate provider, need to have and abide by this licence.

For all I know, Vinomofo have a licence in South Australia already, so I do not want to disparage them. But if an interstate provider chooses not to do this, it does not seem like we could do any follow-up whatsoever in relation to that business. That seems like a bit of a pitfall. It seems like introducing this is a halfway measure when we actually have no ability to follow it up.

Since this is my last one, I will ask a double-barrelled question. Are there any interstate operators selling to South Australians who have licences in our state already, and would we expect that some of those people are going to transition to interstate licences? The worry I have is that there might be local offices of those companies, and they might say, 'We can now operate completely from Sydney, Melbourne, etc., and do not have to have an office in Adelaide.' Is that something that is being considered?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is quite the reverse. We do not want a situation where any model here is going to encourage people to go and operate from outside South Australia. What we are simply saying is that, if you operate outside South Australia and you want to sell into South Australia, you have to comply with our rules.

I do not buy a lot of wine by the method that you have suggested, but when you ask if there is someone who operates outside South Australia and sells in South Australia, I think immediately of Penfolds Grange, now owned by Treasury Wine. Its headquarters operate in Melbourne, under the previous government's watch, I might say. It was a very sad day. The owners of Grange Hermitage, the iconic wine, grow grapes in my electorate and I think around the state. Of course, apparently everyone claims to grow grapes that go into Grange. I see the former senator, who is obviously interested in this debate. He grows grapes, and he probably sells them to Grange as well.

I make the point that I do not know what licensing arrangement they currently have, but what I do know is that they have their headquarters outside the state of South Australia—a sad day, I think, for exactly that point. Nevertheless, if they sell here under a process where they operate from another state, they still have to have a licence here. They may have other subsidiaries or South Australia-based offices. Of course, they have the magnificent facility up on Penfold Road. It is very lovely, for any members who want to go and visit it.

I make this point: we do not want our South Australians who provide wine into the direct sale market to be under the regime of regulation and then have somebody from interstate or even overseas, who is not compliant with those regulations, flooding the market with wine. This whole structure is designed to say that they have to be compliant if they want to sell in South Australia.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney-General confirm in relation to these mandatory conditions that there is currently no way to refuse a name change of a licensed premises at the moment?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: That is correct.

Mr PICTON: Under what circumstance would this proposed power need to be used?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I suppose it is a bit like political parties: every now and again someone dreams up some ridiculous name that Mr Mick Sherry, the Electoral Commissioner, identifies as either offensive, too close in a name to someone else who is trading as that political party's name, and/or is one which in some way would breach some trademark, I suppose.

These are the sorts of circumstances where we have existing structures to ensure that there is recognition for existing trading names and/or political parties names, in that example. It is similar to what we have in relation to the trading names of businesses. In this instance, I imagine the type of situation in which this might apply is that somebody does not try to sell a new wine with the name of Grange Hermitage on it. There may be currently other laws that protect against that, but that is exactly the type of situation where there needs to be protection in those circumstances.

We have seen a situation in the reverse of that, for example, in China, where we know that people have bottled and sold wine under Australian labelling, which is not actually prepared by that agency. We obviously need to protect the integrity of the product that is Australian, in this case South Australian.

Mr PICTON: Following that, how did this amendment come about? Specifically, was there a recommendation from the commissioner, or your department, or somebody else saying, 'Well, we have these particular names that do fall foul of this that we would have liked to oppose but we didn't have the power to do so'? If that is the case, what are those names? If that was not the case, and there have actually been no examples of this how did this amendment to the bill come about?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It is at the request of the commissioner. I refer again to what I said in the second reading, which states:

to confer power on the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner to refuse a name change for licensed premises. It would be a matter for the commissioner to determine when the name should be refused; for example, the commissioner might refuse a misleading name or an offensive name;

So, yes, this is a matter which has genesis from the wise counsel of the commissioner.

Clause passed.

Clauses 15 to 17 passed.

Clause 18.

Mr PICTON: Could the Attorney-General outline why the process of notifying the commissioner rather than applying to the commissioner is preferred in these situations of variances to licences?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The notification procedure, unlike an application procedure, is one where the discretion is vested with the commissioner as to whether, on certain information, he or she would act to vary the relevant licence or any of the terms and conditions under that licence. This is a procedure where the licensee notifies in three different categories the reduced number of hours, etc., the reduced number of persons, etc., or no longer sells or supplies liquor.

The notification of those circumstances then triggers the capacity for the commissioner to vary the relevant licence or conditions, which he may do. He does not have to do it. He may say, 'I have received that information. I do not propose to make any changes.' The proposal here, as distinct from an application, is that, if this information is provided by a licensee, that action can follow, but it does not have to.

Clause passed.

Clauses 19 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

Ms BEDFORD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bedford–1]—

Page 7, after line 34—Insert:

(a1) Section 107A(1)—delete 'cause the identifying number on the licence authorising such sale to be displayed on any advertisement published or distributed by or on behalf of the licensee (whether in printed form or electronically)' and substitute:

cause—

(a) the identifying number on the licence authorising such sale; and

(b) a message relating to responsible drinking that complies with any requirements set out in the regulations,

to be displayed on any advertisement published or distributed by or on behalf of the licensee (whether in printed form or electronically)

The CHAIR: Would you like to speak to the amendment?

Ms BEDFORD: There is nothing really much to say. It is a very minor amendment and I think that, in line with some of the points that the member for Kaurna made on the direct sales liquor licences, which is section 39A of the act, this is a measure that South Australia could easily introduce and look to perhaps lead the way.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I received the amendment and I appreciate a copy being provided to me by the member for Florey just before we started this debate. From the briefing that she provided to me, my understanding is that she was looking to have some consistency in the advertising on alcohol and responsible gambling, hence responsible drinking was to have a similar theme. That was really her objective.

Obviously, there does not appear to be any immediate reason why it should be consistent. It seems to me that national agencies, such as DrinkWise, ought to be consulted about this amendment because there are programs around Australia to consider. That said, of course we are always happy to look at any initiative of members who seek to serve an improvement in a bill, but receiving this at this stage, without having consulted any of the stakeholders, would not be appropriate.

I am also advised that, at first blush of this legislation, it actually does more than that. It would impose in relation to, for example, the size of advertising, further costs for the direct sale industry and that includes, in relation to the licensee, an obligation in the printing and production of their catalogues and advertising material. That may be the objective of the mover of this amendment, but, again, that is a level of a new regulation which, on the face of it, is going to impose further regulatory obligations on the direct sales licensees, which we have not identified yet as having justification.

We will look at it. I indicate that I will oppose the amendment but we will have a look at it and obviously discuss it with the relevant stakeholders. If, as the member suggests, she wishes to pursue this in the other place, then I would hope to have that position clarified before that occurs.

Ms BEDFORD: I thank the Attorney for her remarks. It is really interesting when you think about it. I am not asking you to do anything except put some sort of message, which does not have to be more than two words and does not have to be on the actual item you are selling, but as part of your direct sales licence at some point somewhere, those two words occur. I take on board your message that you will not support the amendment here, but it will be going into the upper house, so I look forward to the consultation or some sort of discussion around that before that happens.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I understand that as the mover has alluded to it. However, to require, by virtue of this amendment, the identifying number on the licence authorising such sale and the message as to responsible drinking compliant, it does not currently suggest that that is something that is either on the bottle or in a particular place. What I am indicating, and the advice I have received, is that, as currently drafted, this would require the regulatory increase, including for all the advertising material that is already printed in respect of product that is proposed to be sold in South Australia. That is clearly a matter about which we need to speak to the industry.

I think at first blush the advice I am getting is that that would be burdensome to the industry and would place that on not just interstate but also anyone in direct sales. That, of course, means that we need to consult our South Australian base as well in that exercise, but we will do so.

The CHAIR: The member for Kaurna has a question.

Mr PICTON: Not a question, but just a short comment. I thank the member for Florey for moving her amendment. I appreciate that this is something that she has been pushing for for some time in a number of different pieces of legislation. However, this particular amendment came to us just in the last hour. It is not something that we have had the ability to consult on or consider significantly at this time. Having said that, we are happy, as I am sure the Attorney has said that she is as well, to discuss this between the houses to better understand the nature and effect of the amendment that has been proposed, but not to support it yet at this time.

Ms BEDFORD: The Attorney was saying to have the words 'cause the identifying number on the licence authorising such sale to be displayed'. That is already in your legislation, so that is not something that I am asking for. Whatever I am asking for surely is not as burdensome as that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Perhaps we are at cross-purposes. In any event, we will have a look at the matter between the houses.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 2

Noes 42

Majority 40

AYES
Bedford, F.E. Bell, T.S. (teller)
NOES
Basham, D.K.B. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brown, M.E. Chapman, V.A. (teller)
Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. Gee, J.P. Harvey, R.M.
Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J. Knoll, S.K.
Koutsantonis, A. Luethen, P. Malinauskas, P.
Marshall, S.S. McBride, N. Michaels, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Murray, S. Odenwalder, L.K.
Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Picton, C.J.
Pisoni, D.G. Power, C. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D.J. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K.
Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L. Wortley, D.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clause 23.

Mr PICTON: I appreciate everyone coming to the debate. Just in relation to this clause, as I mentioned in my second reading contribution, a personal bugbear of mine is that you have these relatively ugly signs that I am sure have been gazetted for probably eons in the legislation. I appreciate that this is talking about some digital form of the licence being displayed. In relation to that, I ask the Attorney-General whether that has to be a static display or whether it could be in a sort of PowerPoint version that cycles through, so you might have to wait five minutes before you actually see the licence.

Has the government given any thought to some variable form in which the other types of gazettal notices—i.e. drinking age, etc.—could be displayed in a more graphically appealing way for licence holders rather than the Times New Roman, 36-point, blue-on-white form that I am sure has been in the gazettal for 45 years?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am reading from the act at the moment, which currently makes provision for the display of the copy of the licence in accordance with any requirements prescribed by regulation and makes provision for the particulars on a licence being able to be described, again by regulation, at the front of the premises. In the current clause, which is currently as per section 109, new subsection (1) is really a refinement as to the display provision. As you rightly pointed out, it enables an electronic version to be there, so if someone wants to put an iPad on the wall they can do that.

Mr Picton: Does it have to be static, or can it cycle through other things?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think it is probably the reverse. Is it prohibited from being rolling material? I will get some advice on that, but I do not believe so, so it could be done, yes.

Mr Picton: It could be one of 30 slides?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, it could have a rolling display, if that is what you are talking about. There are a number of graphics that can happen with this, where different material flashes up. I would imagine that it would have to be continuous—that is, you could not flash it up and then have 10 advertisements for alcohol in between. If it is going to be rolling, then it would need to be continuous of the message of display that is needed to be on the endorsements. But if it is anything different from that, we will come back to you.

Clause passed.

Clause 24.

Mr PICTON: Last question—well, we will see what the answer is—on clause 24: why does the Attorney-General believe that it is acceptable that records could be kept outside the state? Is there any concern that there could be unintended consequences in that record-keeping jobs could be sent interstate or overseas, or also that there could be difficulties in obtaining records when they would be needed by appropriate authorities?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I thought the member for Kaurna would be a little bit more modern than this question illustrates. Perhaps he is not, so perhaps I will just explain this. We keep records in hard-copy form that is stored; that is true. But a very large amount of our data and record is now electronic, and at any one time it might be floating around in the iCloud. It might be on a piece of equipment which has it stored which is not physically in South Australia or within our airspace. We do need to modernise. We are removing the words 'in this State' because we live in the real world, and the real world is that we store data in a place other than physically in South Australia.

As to the question of putting jobs outside the state, this is not a situation of what hard-copy records we have being stored outside the state. I recently had a look at the Records Act and what facilities we have in South Australia, and a large amount of it is stored in a facility in South Australia out in the northern area but a lot of it, unfortunately, is sitting in private storage facilities. That relates to a whole lot of material that accumulated under the previous government, where ministers have now had to pay for all this material to be taken off site and put into private storage.

That creates another problem. It highlights perhaps a failing of the previous government to make sure that record keeping was kept up to date and properly processed and stored. Leaving that aside—as if that were not bad enough—the previous government outsourced a whole lot of the data entry to a church, as I recall. It was the subject of questions in the parliament, actually, when I was in opposition to the previous government—

Mr Picton: Ancestry.com.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, it was to a particular church group. They send their people down to the records headquarters and they provide a service for putting all this data online, but they also get a copy of it.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I know; quite reasonably questions were asked about that. Assurances were given by the former attorney-general that, in exchange for them getting access to material, this service relates only to material that is otherwise publicly accessible. Presumably they would otherwise have paid a fee. We did not do that.

I have been out there and seen how it operates and have no reason to in any way interfere with the arrangement that has been made. Contracts have been drawn up. However, I make the point that we are not in the business of transferring jobs out of the state. This government is in the business of ensuring that we have jobs in this state and that we have enough of our young people stay here and invest here so that they do have those jobs.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (25), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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