HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-06-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Liquor Licensing (Liquor Production and Sales Licence) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 May 2020.)

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (15:56): I am very pleased to take the opportunity this afternoon to provide some brief remarks in support of the Liquor Licensing (Liquor Production and Sales Licence) Amendment Bill 2020. This is a quite defined and confined reform in this area, and I might say it is within the context of broader work that is being done to reform and to develop the liquor licensing regime across the board.

For the time being, this bill is quite specific in its application, going as it does to amend that part of part 3 of the act so as to make it abundantly clear—and I will come in a moment to the provision itself—that for the purposes of that category of licence that is the subject of section 39 dealing with liquor production and sales licences, licensed premises relevantly must not be comprised of premises ordinarily known or advertised as a supermarket, convenience store or delicatessen or premises of a prescribed kind. That is provided for specifically to make it clear that this category of licence is not for premises so described in the ordinary course.

The Liquor Licensing Act of 1997 deals with the whole scope of the licensing regime that applies in this state. Put briefly, it covers to begin with the establishment of and the processes for the licensing authorities—the commissioner and the licensing court—which are primarily the subject of part 2, and the operation of the court and its processes and the functions of the commissioner, with applications for licences, the process, who might apply and so on being the subject of part 4 of the act.

What we are here concerned with is the operative part, part 3, so far as it concerns that category of licences being ongoing as opposed to licences of a short-term duration. First of all, the act sets out the structure under which the licences are required. I might say that section 29 is, if you like, the base provision setting out the requirement for a licence in order to sell liquor in the state. Section 30 goes on to identify those specific categories of circumstances of the provision of alcohol in which a licence is not required.

I will just stay with that for a moment so as to characterise what we are dealing with in these amendments to section 39. Members will be interested perhaps to be reminded that there is a range of categories of the provision of alcohol on an ongoing basis for which a licence is not required. Those include, unsurprisingly, the provision of alcohol for medicinal purposes, including in accordance with a prescription; for sacramental purposes; and in the course of an education course, one that has been identified as such and for these purposes by the minister and notified in the Gazette. Interestingly, the supply of alcohol in Parliament House by the prescribed authority is also a particular area that is covered by the section 30 carve out.

Also, the provision of alcohol by the master of a ship to a member of the ship's crew is specifically provided for in section 30, as is the provision of alcohol to a patient at a hospital in appropriate circumstances and the receipt of a prize, and there are other circumstances that are contemplated by section 30 that may be the subject of regulations from time to time. We are talking about circumstances other than those, circumstances other than those particular special circumstances in which a licence of a short-term duration is granted and the category of ongoing licence that is the subject of part 3 as it relates to liquor production and sales.

I might just say for completeness that part 6 of the act onwards deals with all manner of related aspects of the regime and its control, including the conduct of businesses that enjoy the benefit of a licence, its application to minors, discipline, offences, enforcement and the like. But we are here concerned with part 3 and for these purposes making it abundantly clear that a licence that is the subject of section 39 is not to be granted in circumstances where the licensed premises are ordinarily known or advertised as a supermarket, convenience store, delicatessen or premises of a prescribed kind.

It is convenient in these circumstances to contrast that, particularly as we commence our journey out of the very comprehensive restrictions that we have all experienced in the course of the COVID-19 public health emergency. There are so many premises that hold relevant liquor licences that have been forced over these many recent weeks that we have all struggled through together here in South Australia and around the world to close down altogether temporarily. What a happy day it was on 1 June when we saw and started to be able to experience again in a meaningful way in this state the reopening and resumption of services in our hotels.

The hotels in my area throughout the hills of Heysen were no exception. As members know very clearly, because I have adverted to it on so many occasions over both this last year and the year prior, I am very proud to be the member for Heysen, within which is contained the best hotel in Australia, and that is not just me saying it. It is important that I highlight that the Crafers Hotel has been judged in multiple years by those who know much better than me across the country for its extraordinary work as an exemplar in this area and has been awarded best hotel in Australia.

Heysen is blessed with so many hotels of very high quality. I think the Crafers Hotel is fortunate to be at the top of a pile of worthy contenders because just down the road from the Crafers Hotel we are very fortunate to have the Stirling Hotel. The Stirling Hotel is one that I have very much in mind when I say how happy I am that 1 June came around and the doors could be opened in compliance with the ongoing requirements. With full responsibility for those now necessary arrangements, one of the best hotels in Australia could be back open and welcoming locals to come and enjoy a meal and a drink in accordance with the licence that it enjoys. Crafers and Stirling are not alone.

Members interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: There are hotels near and far. I will highlight just a few more. I thank the minister for his interest because we have the Bridgewater Inn just a little way down the road. That is my local, as a Bridgewater local. The Bridgewater Inn is doing substantial and fantastic work, including its support, along with the Bridgewater Mill, for the Bridgewater Callington Raiders just across the road at the Bridgewater Oval—a wonderful precinct. Again, it is wonderful to see those venues back up and running and operating in accordance with the licences that they enjoy.

Just a little way down the road at Macclesfield we find the Hagen Arms Hotel, the Macclesfield Hotel and the Three Brothers Arms, all vying for prominence in Venables Road, right in the middle of Macclesfield, arguably the best main street in all the world. It is a wonderful place to go—take your choice or go to all three.

Just a little way further, to Strathalbyn, one finds locals and visitors alike at the Victoria Hotel, the Robin Hood and of course the Commercial Hotel. These have all gone through enormous privation over the last several weeks, and they have all been really waiting for the day when they can get back on track. JobKeeper has helped, and the way in which we have been able to move through and overcome the pandemic has helped, but we know that they will be looking for every bit of support over these next weeks and months to come.

That is not all: the Greenman Inn at Ashbourne has been recently and comprehensively renovated, and it is a gathering place for the Ashbourne community and just a wonderful place to serve as the centre of that wonderful community at Ashbourne. It would, of course, be remiss of me not to highlight, in particular, the Meadows Hotel, which has been a wonderful fixture in Meadows for such a long time, and the Royal Oak Hotel at Clarendon.

I know not all of us can stand up in this house and so proudly reel off so many of the state's leading hotels. I am fortunate to be able to do so.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You might be surprised about that, member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: I am proud to be able to reel off my list and I am proud to encourage everyone, not just residents of Heysen but residents of South Australia across the board, to be out and about in the regions. I encourage everyone to tick each of these off their list to start with—there is a long weekend coming up—while continuing to patronise our restaurants, our clubs and our venues that have been opened over these recent days.

This is a wonderful opportunity for South Australians in the days, weeks and months ahead to get to know their venues throughout the state and in their local area, and also to get out and discover some of these that they might not have been to before or discovered already. I very much encourage that, and I am encouraged by South Australians who have already been demonstrating that that is very much what they plan to do, and to take this opportunity. We all know that we are still restricted somewhat in our movements, but I think the opportunity we all have here in South Australia to get around the state and to get to know our state better is one we should all take. I commend the doing of that by those in the Hills and also in all parts of the state.

As I outlined at the outset, this particular bill is providing for a very particular set of circumstances, making clear, as it does, that relevantly licensed premises—for these purposes, the liquor production and sales licence—are not to be comprised of those premises that I have described. I look forward to the further and broader consideration of reform in relation to the Liquor Licensing Act and the regime that it covers over the time ahead.

For the time being, I commend this reform and I look forward to working with the government on reforms to come, together with the work we are all doing with the hospitality industry, tourism and the related investments throughout our state with venues of all kinds that are responsibly involved in the production, the supply and otherwise the provision of hospitality in and around the service of alcohol.

It will remain, I am sure, an area of keen interest for my constituents in Heysen to ensure, in terms of state regulation across the board when it comes to licensed premises, the provision of hospitality—whether that be at the one end on the production side, at our wonderful cellar doors, all the way through to the provision of accommodation, together with food and alcohol and indeed those providers of packaged alcohol.

The proper operation of the regulatory regime in this space is a matter of critical importance to those so many businesses in my area, and I will continue to follow reforms in this area with a great deal of interest. For the time being, I commend this bill to the house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (16:17): I rise to speak on the Liquor Licensing (Liquor Production and Sales Licence) Amendment Bill and indicate that I am the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition. On the face of it, this move by the government is to be commended. It appears from the contribution of the Attorney that we have a rather clever attempt by one corporate entity (a recent entrant, I believe, into the South Australian supermarket market) to try to become a liquor retailer, which has certainly been something which we have precluded here in South Australia for many, many years under governments of both persuasions.

That is not to forget the frottage, if I can put it like that, a former attorney-general under the former Labor government had with contemplating the sale of selected alcohol products in locally owned supermarkets. It was quickly found that developing such a model and trying to limit it to South Australian-owned retailers and limit it to South Australian-produced products was unfeasible. It was also, of course, important to recognise that no-one could be comfortable that doing so would not have a very substantial impact on other South Australian small businesses, particularly small businesses in the hotel industry.

We have heard the member for Heysen talk about some of his hotels in his electorate, which are almost as good as the hotels that exist in my electorate, but I take my hat off to him for trying. I am very fortunate to have people who reside in my electorate and who own and operate hotels in my electorate.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Minister for Primary Industries makes a comment, and I am sure that he probably has a similar situation with some of the hotels in his electorate that are owned by locals of his electorate as well, and if that is the case that is something to be celebrated.

I used to represent, before the efforts of the member for Heysen, an electorate which contained some part of metropolitan Adelaide and which had some of the densest population of hotels in South Australia. I am not talking about Port Adelaide, which was always thought to have the densest population of hotels, but I am talking about just over the other side of the inner reach of the Port River, which used to comprise part of the electorate of Lee. I am talking about suburbs including Ethelton, Exeter, Birkenhead and Peterhead, which have a large number of hotels, and also, of course, Semaphore and Largs Bay.

While my current boundaries do not quite have such the density of hotels that perhaps the previous incarnation of the electorate of Lee had, I am still very pleased to say that there are still a large number of hotels, and all of them very proudly employ a large number of South Australians and employ a large number of locals from the electorate as well.

I think we should all recognise the importance of the hotel industry in supporting jobs, particularly for young South Australians. There are a lot of young South Australians who get their first job in a hotel, whether they start off in a kitchen or whether they start off as a glassy, for example, before they are able to work at that premises as a responsible person in the service of alcohol. It does not end there, of course. There are also a dwindling number but an important number of local South Australian-owned and operated bottle shops and direct liquor retailers here in South Australia that should also be recognised in the course of this debate.

It is once again a dwindling number in the current configuration in the electorate of Lee, but an important number nonetheless, one of which is attached to the Lakes Hotel with West Lakes Cellars, and one close by in my electorate, which is part of the South Australian-owned Fassina chain of bottle shops. That is not to downplay the numerous BWS, Celebration and Liquorland-type outlets, which, although they may not be ultimately owned by South Australians, certainly do employ local South Australians.

These are all operations, businesses, small businesses that stand to lose significantly if a large multinational corporate like Aldi were able to start retailing liquor from their increasing number of premises in South Australia. It would put those South Australian small businesses at a distinct disadvantage, and it would be done on the basis of, I think, a business model which takes advantage of a loophole in the Liquor Licensing Act and which certainly was not intended to give rise to this sort of retailing activity.

That is why, I think, on the face of it—and obviously we have some questions to ask during the committee stage and presumably in the other place as well—this seems to be a good measure from the government and from the Attorney-General. I note that the Attorney takes this measure to this place at a time when we as a community and particularly the government—and I think they deserve some credit, not always but some credit—for trying to be flexible with liquor licence holders at this time.

I thought it was a positive announcement from the Attorney that she would make use, and the liquor licensing commissioner would make use, of what capacities they had under the current law and regulations to enable licence holders to temporarily transition to other arrangements in order to maximise their opportunity of operating as we continue the emergence from restrictions put in place to minimise the risk of the coronavirus spreading. I think that is also a positive thing.

I do not envy the commissioner because I imagine there are all sorts of complexities and intricacies and competing issues which need to be considered about whether a particular licence holder should have that flexibility and, if they do, what sort of licence they move to, on what basis, and so on. But I think that is a good thing because for many, many decades not only has the hotel industry supported a lot of South Australian workers but so have restaurants, cafes and, in more recent memory, the emergence of small bars, particularly in the city centre.

Like all other small businesses that have been forced to close because of the necessity of trying to limit the spread of the coronavirus, they not only want to get back open and trading again, and not only do the public want to get out and support them again, but they also need to find the smoothest possible ways that they can sustainably operate their businesses in these difficult times. We had that example three or four weeks ago now of the message going out from the government that restaurants and cafes could reopen for business from a particular date only for many venues to be stymied by the realisation that they did not hold the right liquor licence.

I am not quite sure who was putting it about that the fault of that was the former Labor government and the complexity of the liquor licence laws. We have certainly had the opportunity to amend those laws if indeed it was foreseen that that was going to be a consequence. I thought whoever was shopping that argument around to the media in an effort to deflect attention away from the government was being very disingenuous. Nonetheless, finally there is some clarity and, importantly, the opportunity for many more of these businesses to operate.

I think also worthy of reflection is what sort of role we think South Australian-owned and operated small businesses should play in comparison with what sort of role large national or multinational corporations should play in our economy here, particularly in the retail sector. We have always taken the view on this side of the house that it is worthy, when the opportunity arises, to support wherever possible South Australian owned and operated retailers, particularly supermarkets. Again, another resident of the electorate of Lee, Roger Drake and his son John-Paul Drake, operate a large network of South Australian owned and operated supermarket retailers, employing thousands of South Australians.

There are many Foodlands still here in South Australia. There are many locally operated IGA supermarkets as well. Many of them own relatively small outlets. Many of them operate outlets under 400 square metres of retail space. Whether they are above 400 square metres or below 400 square metres, we think it is worthy to try to provide a legislative and regulatory environment that gives those businesses the best possible chances of success. Things have been increasingly difficult for these retailers over the last 10 to 20 years in particular, as we have seen more aggressive, more well-funded incursions into suburbs and neighbourhoods not just by Coles and Woolies but by other retailers entering the space, including Aldi.

There are many people in my electorate who shop at Aldi, including the Aldi at West Lakes on Frederick Road. But it is worth noting that one of the ways in which that retailer is able to provide goods at a comparatively lower cost, even to Coles and Woolies, let alone to South Australian-owned and operated supermarkets, is their operating model. They make a particular point of minimising the number of staff who are present within their premises during opening hours to reduce employee costs and that contribution to their overall costs.

That may sound fine as a business owner and operator to minimise that sort of cost, but the real impact for many South Australians is fewer job opportunities at those organisations which have a growing presence and market share in the retail environment. In South Australia, I think the market share we have for independent retailers is approximately 30 per cent. In other states around Australia, it is somewhere between 5 per cent and 10 per cent.

The difference, of course, is that those other states have a deregulated model of operating hours and operating provisions, which is what the Liberal government here wanted to introduce. We have always resisted that because we know that the impact will be a leg-up for those larger, better funded, corporately supported retailers—not just Coles and Woolies but others like Aldi—to gain an increasing market share.

The dry economic rationalist amongst us, usually over that side of the house, would say, 'That is a good thing. It should be up to the consumer.' Well, it is not a good thing if it means that thousands fewer South Australians will be employed in the retail sector. It is worth reflecting on the figures that South Australian independent retailers regularly provide to governments, oppositions and members of parliament about the average amount per hundred dollars that are spent on wages in those different types of retailers.

Of course, it is no surprise that it is the Foodlands, the IGAs, the South Australian-owned and operated retailers like the Drakes, which proportionally employ more South Australians. Not only do they employ more South Australians, but being locally owned and operated means that the profits that are generated largely stay in South Australia as compared with the profits that are generated by the Coles, the Woolies and the multinationals like the Aldis. That is why we have always taken this position.

I am glad that the government, at least in this way, is recognising that South Australian-owned and operated retailers are worthy of some protection from the incursion that the likes of an Aldi is trying to make within the South Australian market, because I think it is a recognition that they do not hold the same promise of contribution to jobs or economic activity on average that other retailers do. That is critically important at this point in time as we seek to support an economy which has been battered from the impacts of the restrictions put in place to limit the spread of the coronavirus.

I do hope that the rejection by the parliament of the government's attempts to amend the shop trading act in that way are left alone and not reagitated because, over the next two years, as we expect to be in economic recovery, what we need to see are more efforts like this that help support South Australian owned and operated enterprises from the incursions of multinational players. We need to see fewer attempts to change the laws that make it easier for nationals or multinationals to increase their presence here in South Australia because, quite frankly, it is bad for our economy.

The promise of saving 10¢ a litre on a carton of milk or 20¢ on a loaf of bread is not worth the significant loss of employment and livelihoods that it would create across the South Australian economy. I think it is in that vein that I draw the distinction between this bill and what it seeks to do and the defeated bill that we have previously seen, which sought to amend shop trading hours.

We even saw the Treasurer come out as we were entering into the midst of these very tough but necessary restrictions and say, 'Well, to enhance social distancing opportunities, we are going to increase shop trading hours.' The response from Aldi, Coles and Woollies was to reduce their opening hours, not expand them, which came at some embarrassment to the Treasurer and to the government.

It was also remarkable that we were saying to South Australians, from another ministerial direction about shop trading hours and what could and could not occur for ANZAC Day, that we could have people entering shops as long as they maintained social distancing but not RSLs. I thought that was remarkable. I thought it was a very poor look for what was a tin-eared attempt by the Treasurer to try and stamp his relevance and mark on the coronavirus restrictions and the management of it by the government.

As much as we have taken exception with several of the ways that the state's economic recovery has been handled by the government, one thing I can say has been pleasing is largely the absence of the Treasurer from that, because I would have thought that that cold, unimaginative hand which he brings to government financial matters, let alone economic matters, could be cast to one side so that we could genuinely support the community of South Australia and the economy. I hope that the—

Mr Pederick: He's written a blank cheque for Health.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry, the member for Hammond was winding me up.

Mr Pederick: I said he has written a blank cheque for Health, which it would have hurt him to admit to.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: 'He has written a blank cheque for Health.' I am sure the Minister for Health would be pleased to hear that, although it does not quite explain the 370 nurses who have received notice that their services of employment are no longer required.

I hope that the government continues in the vein of this sort of bill, gets in behind South Australian-owned and operated retailers and makes those changes that give them the support they need in order to not only get back up and running to get their operations up to speed again but to maximise the opportunities they have to employ South Australians, because it is exactly what our economy needs. If this is what the government is doing here, then it is to be applauded. I think the distinction between this and its shop trading hours reform is something that should be noted.

I would be pleased to leave my remarks there, but I am waiting for another member to be ready to commence theirs, so I will continue to the point at which we reach that juncture in time and I will not be the last contributor to this debate. I have to say, though, he is not making it easy on me to conclude and pass over the speaking opportunity to the member for Hammond, because I understand he is yet to resume his place.

Mr Pederick: Someone is going to jump me, though.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There we go. If we are handing over to the minister for the regions, then I will be pleased to conclude my remarks now.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Alas, member for Lee, we all must conclude our remarks at some point in this place.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (16:39): I guess we all have a story to tell about a local hotel, a local pub or a local club, and I will reflect on a few of mine in the seat of Chaffey. I have quite a unique situation, a different set of rules from a lot of the privately owned hotels, because in the Riverland we have community hotels. They are not owned by individuals; they are owned by the community, and they were set up during the soldier settlement era. Those hotels in the main Riverland towns are just that, and there is an agreement that there is only one hotel per town and only one club per town. They were set up with a board structure, and to this day that is still the way they are managed, but there are some outlying hotels that are individually owned.

If I start the journey from Adelaide and head back into the great electorate of Chaffey, the first hotel I come to would be the Sedan Hotel. It is famous for being positioned on a five-way junction on the highway, and there are always many, many stories to be told there. The Pinningtons who manage it are really great hoteliers. They realise that it is a marginal-type pub, but they have their regulars who are always at the front bar and always have a story to tell when I call in, and they always serve up a great meal if I stay there. Of course, we have to drink responsibly, and to be able to do that we need a great pub meal—and there is nothing better.

As we make our way through, coming into Blanchetown we then run into the Blanchetown Hotel. I know that the manager there, Wes, also does an outstanding job. The Blanchetown Hotel is quite a historic hotel. It overlooks the River Murray and is enshrined in history because it has been there such a long time. It is home to Lock 1 and is a great asset to the town.

If we look further, just down the river—we have to come out of Blanchetown and turn right to head to Swan Reach—is the Swan Reach Hotel, which is also enshrined in history. It sits high on a cliff overlooking the River Murray and the town. It is a great pub: a longstanding family have owned that hotel, the Johnstons, and they continue to keep it open. They have been through some very slim times, particularly when that part of the area was devastated by the Millennium Drought.

The diversity at that part of the river is obviously reliant on shack owners, and anywhere below Lock 1 is where you will find the majority of the shacks on the River Murray. The area above Lock 1 does not lend itself to shack owners, as such, but lends itself to the houseboat industry—but that is a story for another day.

If we come out of Blanchetown and turn left, we head towards Morgan, a unique river town. They have two pubs across the road from each other. At the Terminus, Phil, the manager there, does a great job, as does the Commercial. They have their loyal attendees who grace the bars there and whenever I call past it is always one beer in one pub and another beer in the other pub, just to keep everyone happy. I regularly attend a number of these pubs when I am out and about having my politics in the pub. It gives those local constituents an opportunity to come and vent their opinions and also to catch up. If they have any grievances unassociated with the chat of the day, that is exactly what we do there.

After we have been to Blanchetown, turned right to go to Sedan or left to go to Morgan, all of a sudden we come into the Riverland and the larger towns there, and that is where we find the community hotels. Those hotels, as I said, have a board structure. Basically, they are part of the fabric of those Riverland towns. As I said, there is one hotel per town and one community club per town, and they all have a unique distinction.

Of course, we come to the Waikerie Hotel, which was recently burned down and, in association with their vision and their future, the board rebuilt it and it is an absolute picture now in the main street. It is not on the river, but it is a landmark in the town of Waikerie. One of the trademarks of Waikerie is that they do not have local rubbish bins: they have big oranges on the footpath that people put their rubbish in. That is much to the displeasure of the council because, every time those bins have to be emptied, the bin collector cannot come along, flip them up and put them in the back of their truck: they have to get out and empty them manually. As a sidenote, that is just part of the experience in Waikerie.

Just up the road from Waikerie is the Cadell Club—and Cadell is a very small river village—and it is a unique experience in that it is only open a number of days per week and run by volunteers, who do an amazing job. It is one of the landmarks of that town and it, too, is sponsored and patronised by a loyal group of locals. There are some commuters who come up from Adelaide and have blocks up there. Every time I drop in, there is always someone new in the Cadell Club. They have fought the lean times. That community band together and the volunteers keep that club alive. It is an absolute testament to their commitment not only to keep the club alive but to really keep the fabric of that small town alive.

Into Barmera, there is quite a majestic hotel at the bottom of the main street. It is also complemented by the Barmera Club, which is really the Barmera footy club. They have just done a massive renovation. I talk about these pubs and clubs because the reason they survive is that they are patronised by local people who are passionate about these landmarks. All the pubs in the Riverland are landmarks because they have significant history and they have significant stories to tell.

Everyone has a sporting hero in a Riverland town. I could go on for a very long time about the prowess of the Riverland greats in sporting history. The walls are adorned with pictures of sporting greats. Whether it is in Waikerie or Barmera with a Ricciuto, a Light or an Ebert, pictures of a number of footy greats and waterski greats adorn the walls.

A little bit farther upriver, we get into Berri. Berri has quite a famous hotel up there. The Berri Hotel has had many, many renovations, but it has also had a passing trade. People from right around the Riverland used to congregate at the Berri Hotel, at the Vines. It was always the Vines disco on a Friday night. People would even come up from Adelaide just to attend the Vines disco—how about that?

Mr Pederick: Isn't it on anymore?

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: No, it's not.

Mr Pederick: Outrage!

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE: It has moved on, but I will get to that in a minute. What we see is that a lot of the younger ones have moved on from the Vines. They moved upriver to another Riverland town, and I will get to that soon. We cannot go straight from Berri upriver; we have to go across the river to Loxton. The Loxton Hotel is a beautiful hotel at the bottom of the main street. It does not overlook the river, but it is adorned with history, and it is also a hotel/motel. It has some accommodation and it really is a great hotel run by a very progressive board. The diversity in these hotels to remain viable in small country communities is testament to the fact that they have stood the test of time.

Of course, the Loxton Club is another institution that has a different following. As I said, it is a one-pub town and a one-club town. It has its followers, but it is now neighboured by the newly built sport and rec centre and has a huge sports precinct around it. That gives people the opportunity to watch their sport, play their sport and also walk next door to the club and overlook all that sporting precinct and have a nice cold frothy one. Sadly, the Berri club has closed. There were some shenanigans going on there, with the takings going missing and all of a sudden it disappeared. That is a story for another day. I have talked about all the clubs.

My home overlooks the only village settlement left in Australia and that is the Lyrup village. The Lyrup Community Club has a huge history. As I said, Lyrup is classified as the last remaining village in Australia. It is adorned with the support of the bowling club and that is one of the feeds into that small club. What I can say is they serve the meanest crumbed prawns. I eat a lot of crumbed prawns and I have to tell you they are probably the best in the state. It is a Riverland village, away from the sea, but they just know how to perfect the crumbs on those prawns. I have to give them a plug for that because it is one of my favourite meals.

All the towns have footy clubs. They are a great institution and we understand that. One of the hotels I have saved until last is the Overland Corner Hotel. It is an historic mudbrick hotel that was built in 1859. When you go to the Overland Corner Hotel, you sit down at the bar and you have a beer with a ghost, because there is a patron ghost that sits with you at the bar. Many a tale has been told about the ghost. The more beers you have, the more talkative the ghost is. It really has a story to tell.

The hotel was submerged from top to bottom during the 1956 floods. It was built for the drovers, the Cobb & Co. coach, way back. I had a vineyard property next to the Overland Corner Hotel and I very rarely got to visit Phil and Renske Reddy, but they always serve a very good meal and a very good cold beer. It is an historic pub and a lot of tourists call in there for the experience of having a conversation with a ghost.

As I said, we all have a story to tell about our pubs, our hotels and our clubs. They are all great stories. Many of us have a story to tell about our local. It is a part of the social network in today's society, although things have changed over the last 20 to 30 years. People have to act more responsibly when visiting their local and then driving so, as I said, they have to drink responsibly but also at the same time maybe have a cold beer, buy a carton, take it home and have a beer there or a wine.

The stories about the pubs are fond to everyone's memory. Everyone has a story. I am not going to be overtly political about what this bill is about, but what I would say is it is great to tell a story about the local pubs. It is great to tell a story about some of life's experiences in the bar, in the lounge, at the disco. Country pubs are part of that regional history and they are part of their town's fabric and history.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:54): I rise to support the Liquor Licensing (Liquor Production and Sales Licence) Amendment Bill 2020 and acknowledge that what we are doing here in the main is not allowing supermarkets to sell liquor, which has been a longstanding position in this state.

What we are also not affecting is stores like the Coomandook takeaway bottle shop, which is there with the local general store, and it also does not affect places like Walker Flat or Nildottie either. I recently visited the Walker Flat store, which has the post office and the liquor store there, and, sadly, the owners have it on the market. They may walk away if there is no interest in buying that seven-day-a-week facility to service the local community, which would be a real loss. I am not reflecting on the current owners; it is a tough gig working anything seven days a week and I commend them for that.

Certainly, in relation to the little shop at Coomandook, it is very handy. It is three kilometres from my home, from the farm. You can go in there and pick up a few light refreshments if you so desire and take them home. Certainly, 25 or 30 years ago, when I was working in the shearing sheds, it was very handy to pick up a couple of light refreshments as you went past and you might run into a couple of mates on your way through. Whether it is general stores with attached businesses like that or hotels, as the member for Chaffey, the Minister for Regional Development, was indicating, they are a place for real camaraderie and getting together.

I reflect on what the Minister for Primary Industries was talking about with the Vines disco disappearing. It happens a bit through regional areas. There is a bit of a drop in population or just a change in how things happen, and we have had it happen in my area. I have sadly been around for a few decades now when I have been old enough to drink, but I just want to reflect on a couple of venues—it was the same venue rebadged; I cannot remember which order it was. It was called the Oasis once and then the Ranch (or the other way around), which a licensee who is still in licensed pubs in Adelaide, John Meek, ran between Jervois and Murray Bridge. That was quite the spot to be and there were quite a few live bands out there (it is now a private house), but that sort of went by the wayside over time.

I would just like to reflect for a very short period on John Meek's contribution in the licensing industry and the entertainment industry. He currently runs—or has run; some of the doors are slowly opening—the Black Bull, the Woolshed and Downtown, where he has invested several million dollars to get them up to speed. These venues are licensed for several thousand people all up.

This is obviously part of the issue with COVID. We all understand that while we are working with the corona restrictions people with these large venues are struggling to get them back on their feet. It was easier—I think we have done great work as a government and with the people of South Australia complying with the requirements—when the state basically was shut down, to a degree. It is far easier, it seems, to shut down a state than to open it up.

Even so, I think the Premier and our government are doing a fantastic job in a measured way. At the end of the day, we have to keep people safe and we have to keep people alive. If you look at the worst-case scenarios, what you get is some of the situations that have happened overseas in many countries, including Italy, where the decision was being made that if you were over 60 you did not get a ventilator if you were crook. As I understand it, that was just the blanket decision that was made: if you ended up in hospital, you would not be revived.

I am not saying that was going to happen here; we have done very well here. Sadly, we have lost four people to this virus, but I must commend our front-line people, our health professionals, our health workers and everyone in the field, the police and the government for what they are doing in this crisis.

I note that The Woolshed was slowly opening up the other day. I get a bit of a kick when my 19-year-old son finds out where I am on a Saturday night. I might have been at a function back in the day—not that long ago, pre corona—and he would say, 'What are you doing? Why don't we catch up for a drink?' It is quite good: you go in there, and there are a lot of young people in there from my electorate. There may or may not be a lot of road signs, which for some reason have ended up in the bar, that reflect places around the back of Cooke Plains and Malinong in my electorate. I am not sure they how they got there, but that might be another story. People are always made very welcome.

From what I understand, when the pubs had to shut down, John Meek had 76 kegs that were all on tap and he had to get rid of them. I do not know what he did with them; he might have had to tip them down the drain. But I would just like to acknowledge him. I get that not everyone is into licensed premises, but he has managed to supply entertainment both in my electorate and with what he has going on in Adelaide. There are plenty of struggles with getting liquor licences and working around them. Good on him. He has a fairly red-hot crack and puts everything on the line, I can tell you.

I mentioned this in my maiden speech: about 25 or 30 years ago I was working with a group of other young people between Keith and Geranium, and obviously Coomandook is fairly central to there. I worked with a group running the Sandblasters balls. I was the president for a time, and I was the treasurer. At our peak, we were turning over about $100,000 at these events. It was a challenge, I think, for the authorities on the licensing—and I get that—but they are very contained events. People turn up, you usually have a live band and you pay an all-inclusive fee. There are drinks on the Saturday night, people stay overnight and then there are a few light refreshments on the Sunday.

Sadly, for a range of reasons these events have essentially disappeared from South Australia. I know they had the Stonerollers at Murray Bridge, which is one of the lingerers, and I know Deniliquin still runs a very strong event later in the year.

Mr Teague interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Denny's still going.

Mr Teague: Goondiwindi's still going.

Mr PEDERICK: Goondiwindi has a function that still goes, I am informed. These are fantastic events in the country.

The main thing that came out of this event that we used to run down there was the fact that we donated tens of thousands of dollars into the community. It was so fantastic to go to places like the school where I spent most of my schooling, Coomandook Area School, and donate something like $5,000 of playground equipment or a different group of CD stackers for Geranium Primary School or something to Tintinara, something to Keith, something to the Coonalpyn area. I know we donated a tank to one community; I think it was at Peake. It was money going back into the community.

I note that there were challenges with the authorities with working through licensing matters. There is nothing more daunting, as a couple of young blokes and a couple of young girls, to go to licensing and be in a room in Adelaide with about 15 or 20 people and going through how the licence was going to work. We did not have to do that all the time, but it was good that we got an outcome where we managed to get the show functioning.

I do not think they were called superintendents at the time, but over time I have caught up with John Atwood, who was the equivalent of the police superintendent of the area. He was based in Murray Bridge, and we have some quiet, cordial conversations about how we used to work together on making this function work for both of us. I did reflect one day that it might have been a bit easier dealing with us than the Hells Angels at Ponde, and I think he agreed with me.

That was a great time, but things disappear. There is a bit of a dearth of options for young people in Murray Bridge at the moment as far as entertainment venues go. It has been that way for a while, and I know that is reflected to me by even some of my staff talking to me. I guess it is only an hour up the road to Adelaide, but people have to stay somewhere and that sort of thing. But, as I indicated, back in the day there was a bit on. There was the community club happening and then people would end up down the road.

There may be an option. We have three hotels and a community club in Murray Bridge now: we have got the Swanport, Karen Milesi's Murray Bridge Hotel, but we have the Bridgeport, who are finally—and during this crisis—doing a major rebuild to build something fairly similar to the new Port Lincoln Hotel. That is the new Bridgeport Hotel right on the edge of the river and it will be a fantastic venue in the future. It is owned by the Tregoning group. It is about a $40 million build with six storeys and 99 rooms of four-star accommodation.

I have had people reflect to me that they hope they have something that can keep the young ones there on weekends and have a bit of local entertainment because it is needed. We have taxi services and all that sort of thing to make sure that people can get home and do the right thing. People look for entertainment. As we come out of the coronavirus, it is just so good to go to a venue. A week ago tonight, I went around to the Strathmore hoping that I could walk in—I think it was 10 plus 10 licence rules then—to see if I could get a meal at a hotel. I said I was on my own and they said that was alright. You realise that just the opportunity to go somewhere is fantastic.

The next day I had lunch across the road at 2KW up on the roof and that was good as well. It was just nice to get back to a bit of normality, as we have all had to retreat into our caves for a while. That is the reality of what life has been. I genuinely wish the venue owners, whether they own restaurants, small bars or especially those who operate big venues, like John Meek, keep going and find a way through this crisis.

I know there has been a lot of support through JobKeeper from the federal government and support obviously from us and the Attorney-General varying licences to make room in outside venues so that we can do our best with the 80 maximum now and 20 per area. That will slowly ease up over time. I understand that publicans and venues want to hastily open up these venues. I absolutely get that, but at the end of the day we have to do it in a measured way so that we do not have a breakout, because if we have breakout all of a sudden we will have to swing the clamps back on and we will have a real problem with corona rearing its ugly head again.

I also want to talk about some of the venues and places throughout my electorate. We have many hotels from Pinnaroo to Milang. I mentioned the hotels in Murray Bridge and there are also clubs there. The new horseracing club is a fantastic venue. The new greyhound club is a great venue. There are many smaller clubs, such as the footy clubs, the bowling clubs and that sort of thing. At Tailem Bend, we have the railway hotel and the Riverside overlooking the river. If you get down my way, there is the Peake Tavern and the Lameroo Community Hotel, and in Pinnaroo you have the Golden Grain and the Pinnaroo Hotel.

In fact, there was an amusing story that I have told here before so I will give a fairly abridged version. We were down there as part of the select committee into grain harvesting in 2011. We thought we would go to the Pinnaroo Hotel for dinner. We came in unannounced, which was a bit of a problem. They said, 'We have a few schnitzels. We will get them on the go.' They cooked them up and then realised they were one short. To his great credit, the member for Chaffey and I decided we would go half each on a schnitzel so we could make sure the Labor members, the other Liberal member and the crossbench member from the committee could get a full schnitzel.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: So bipartisan.

Mr PEDERICK: So bipartisan. The love was in the room. It is something that occasionally we reflect on. The member for Mawson and the member for Frome were there. It comes up with a bit of jocularity over time. It probably did not hurt me at the time, I must say, to only have half a schnitzel. They are the things we do in the Mallee.

I want to reflect on some of the other things they do in the country, like the Geranium bowling club, where I started bowling over 30 years ago at Night Owls. Now that I have been the president of the South Australian Parliamentary Bowling Club for a few years, I probably should have started bowling 40 years ago and I might have been better. Night bowls is a great way for country people to get together—well, anyone, it does not have to be in the country. I think night bowls is a great way for people to get into the game, and there are a lot of younger people bowling.

I think this is a move in the right direction. What we are doing with these amendments is addressing deficiencies that have been identified with the new liquor production and sales licence category and to reinforce our long-held position that alcohol should not be readily available in supermarkets. It amends this licence category to state that the licensed premises must not be comprised of premises ordinarily known or advertised as a supermarket, convenience store or delicatessen, and provide for a discretion that further premises can be prescribed.

The bill makes a transitional provision to ensure that the amendments to this licence category will apply to licences already granted and to existing applications. It also seeks to address a loophole under this licence provision that allows businesses to sell liquor that they have not produced through direct sales transactions, such as online sales or by mail order.

It is proposed to limit the sale of liquor by direct sales transactions to the licensee's product only, except where the sale is by wholesale or where liquor is sold in quantities of 4.5 litres or more. The proposed amendment would ensure that an LPS licence is only granted to genuine liquor producers and wholesalers. Additionally, the bill includes an amendment to expand the circumstances where a person can seek a review of a decision made by the commissioner with the permission of the Licensing Court.

With the few minutes left, I want to also reflect on the great wineries throughout this state. The other day I mentioned in another speech how good our wineries are in this state and how Langhorne Creek sometimes gets overlooked. It is a fantastic winegrowing region in my electorate, with hundreds and hundreds of hectares of vineyards. These people here have had to adjust their systems regarding licensing arrangements and whether they can be open or not. I commend them all for what they are doing, but I want to acknowledge a couple of them.

I know a lot of work is going into different facilities at different wineries in my electorate. Lake Breeze at Langhorne Creek is building a new function centre and Bremerton is doing a fairly sizeable expansion, and that will enhance the opportunities in the region as well. There is a whole swag of wineries: Bleasdale has been around since day dot, essentially, and Angas Plains Wines and a whole range of others contribute to the local area. They have had it tough. I know they have ramped up the online sales, and that has been very handy for a lot of them, and things are opening up as we come out of the coronavirus restrictions.

There are lot of different licence categories and that has caused a few issues in regard to how things have opened up over time. I want to commend the government in that, as we saw there were gaps needing to be filled, we worked through some of those issues. There is a whole range of licence, including:

short-term liquor licences;

small venue liquor licences;

club liquor licences;

packaged liquor sales licences;

short-term five-year liquor licences;

residential liquor licences;

wine export licences;

event endorsement for short-term five-year licences;

liquor production and sales licences;

on-premises liquor licences;

general and hotel liquor licences; and

restaurant and catering liquor licences.

It is a mixed space and there are real reasons for that. I think we have had some real outcomes moving forward, getting people back into venues, whether it is a small shop like the one in Coomandook, where they sell off the premises, or a small bar in the city, or a place like the East End Cellars (and Michael Andrewartha was one of my classmates at Urrbrae back in the late seventies; it is a bit scary when you reflect on how long ago that was), or a hotel or restaurant. I commend everyone for hanging in there and now getting on board, working through all the restrictions and doing all the right things so that we can enjoy these venues into the future.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:15): I thank all members for their contribution to the second reading of this bill. Whilst it has been rather expansive in the breadth of matters raised in the contributions, it adds the colourful flavour of the industry we are trying to assist here.

If I could just say that, although the bill itself is relatively narrow, in that it is dealing with a potential problem that we had brought to our attention as a government by the commissioner as to this particular licence and its tension with a very clear position of the government and the previous government, liquor in supermarkets was not something that was intended. Whilst in the reforms under the previous government, which did rationalise some of the licences (and this one in particular), the liquor production and sales licence is actually an amalgam of the old producer's licence and the wholesale liquor merchant licence categories.

So we are dealing with a cohort that has a special licence, which is intended to make provision for winegrowers/producers who had the wholesale outlets and really the development of what has become a major cellar-door industry and an opportunity to enhance regions in South Australia that are already rich in tourism. So it is a certain category this is designed for. In short, what has occurred is that, although there was no intention for supermarkets to have liquor available in their product, some supermarket owners do grow grapes and produce wine, and there was potential for it to be argued that persons operating those outlets would take advantage; indeed, applications have been made.

This is a very discrete area of remedy to, in this bill, make provision for the liquor production and sales licence to very clearly identify that it is not to apply to outlets where the premises are advertised and ordinarily known as a supermarket, convenience store or delicatessen. I have to say that I am never overjoyed by seeing the words 'convenience store'—it is very American. It is like a corner store, but in any event I do not want to in any way detract from the importance of this piece of legislation. However, on the advice of parliamentary counsel, it is important here to identify that we are clearly separating out this category and making it clear that this is not, and was never intended to be, addressing supermarkets.

Although this definition is there, other members have raised with me the question that we have other types of licences, one of which is available for small stores, that is, local stores. They are very often in the country and very often the only outlet for food, coffees, and things of that nature in a very small township or settlement. Some are even smaller than towns, and there is no local hotel, there is no local liquor store and there is no local outlet, and persons who live in that settlement or town and surrounds would have to go for quite extensive drives to neighbouring regional towns to be able to access liquor.

These small stores, and there are probably 30-odd around the state, as I say, very often in regional communities, have a special, different category of licence from what we are talking about here today to enable them to sell a small provision of alcohol. It simply means that the local people in those towns or communities are able to go down to their local store, get a takeaway chicken, buy a sixpack of beer and be able to go home and enjoy a refreshment that most other people in South Australia have the benefit of. So we do have a special category for those. I just want to make it clear that there is no application of this bill to affect that licence, which is independent of the production and sales licence that is what is being dealt with today.

Thank you very much for that. I acknowledge Mr Soulio and his team in the commission for the support that they have given us in understanding this issue that has been identified and working through it with us as to how this be dealt with. Legislation seemed to be the only way to make it abundantly clear that that is the current position of the government. I just want to acknowledge also the work of some of the stakeholders, including the South Australian Wine Industry Association, which is a significant stakeholder in this area.

I also want to say in concluding on this bill that, although this potential weakness, loophole—whichever way you want to put it—has been identified in this legislation, we have a very significant industry and contribution of those in the food retail outlet business. Supermarkets are a major player in that space and provide an extraordinary level of service in what they provide to us.

They have, through their stakeholders and individually, presented to the government, and I am sure to the opposition, very significant submissions and some quite powerful arguments for the relaxation, I suppose, of the opportunity to sell alcohol from their outlets, namely, the supermarkets.

It is not the view of the government at this point and it was not at the time of this legislation, and—I say this with confidence—it was not the view of the previous government at the time we dealt with this legislation, and it was not even the view of Mr Tim Anderson QC, who is the retired judge who had done a comprehensive body of work for the previous government in liquor licensing reform, that supermarkets come into this space.

I do not know what will happen in the future. It may be that these things change over time, but that is the position of the government at present, and this will just make it crystal clear in this legislation. Again, I thank members for their contribution and am happy to answer any questions in committee.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Deputy Premier made some allusion in her closing remarks about the consultation that had been undertaken. Could she provide any further detail about who exactly participated in the consultation and what the views offered to the government were in those consultations?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In short, the SA Wine Industry Association, Adelaide Hills wine, Department for Trade and Investment, McLaren Vale wine industry association, Barossa Valley wine, Clare Valley wine, Coonawarra wine, Currency Creek wine region, KI wineries, Langhorne Creek, Padthaway wine region, Riverland wine, Limestone Coast wine, Wrattonbully wine region and the Australian Hotels Association.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Could the Attorney outline whether applications have been made to—I cannot put it euphemistically—exploit the loophole that we are seeking to close and who made those applications?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, Mr Soulio, whom I have referred to earlier in this contribution, had received applications from Aldi supermarkets as a producer of wine for six of its Adelaide stores. I cannot otherwise make any comment in relation to other applications, because they are currently before the liquor licensing court.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question to the Attorney is: will these provisions in the bill close all potential loopholes with respect to supermarkets, delis and convenience stores?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As I am advised, yes. I had some quite lengthy discussions, of course, with the commissioner in relation to this matter as well, but I also have the excellent services of the officer of that division here today. That is correct.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Attorney noted in her speech that an applicant for a packaged liquor sales licence that is not the subject of changes in this bill may be granted permission to sell alcohol in a supermarket if the licensing authority is satisfied that there is a proper reason for doing so. I know she spoke about regional circumstances, but could the Attorney provide other examples, or even an exhaustive list if she has one, about when this could possibly happen?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that the most common one, of course, is Asian stores, which are food outlets where they have a rather unique product. I am assuming that it similarly applies to other types of cultural based liquors that might be sold, usually associated with a food outlet of that cultural mix—so Indian; I imagine that there would be some Turkish options, etc. I cannot say I am a connoisseur of these types of liquors, but they obviously are there in a complementary role with other cuisines.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is the government, or indeed the commissioner, aware of any circumstances beyond those sorts of supermarket-type retailers?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We will take that on notice, just in case there is. I am probably trying to think of a situation not dissimilar to what I was referring to before in a circumstance where there may not be any other facility available, where that might be available to, say, a small supermarket in a town. There may be a cultural section within that and it is able to be sold within those premises. We will check that, and if there is anything else that has that type of specialty licence, we can forward that to you.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is there any impact on alcohol retailers that are attached to, but not necessarily inside the main premises of, supermarkets at this point in time?

The CHAIR: No, and I am sure the member would remember when we debated this legislation back in 2017, I think it was, that there had been some relaxation in relation to the facilities around the adjacent area. That is the popular option available to supermarkets now, that is, to have something next door, separate entrances, capacity to ensure that the people who are working within a food area may be a certain age and not require the same standard of those who are working in a liquor store next door, who have to be over 18 and obviously have to have some checks, etc.

There is a different level of surveillance, a different level of obligation, in relation to the provision of alcohol, obviously to protect minors, and so on. As I understand it, there has been no problem with that. That has continued and remains the usual option, if I can describe it is that, of supermarkets to have an accompanying enterprise next door to be able to offer as geographically close as they can a liquor outlet.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Last question on this bill.

The CHAIR: A point of clarification, I guess.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is a point of clarification, indeed. Thank you, Chair. Can the Deputy Premier advise, and perhaps she may need to take this on notice, whether there are any applications submitted and being considered for such premises, as we have just discussed, from retailers attached to a supermarket premises,?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot give you an answer to that today, but we will take that on notice. This relates to any pending applications currently in the commission. At the least, I can give you the number—I may not be able to give you the names, and I will just see about confidentiality on that—of those seeking to have a standalone but adjacent separate entrance facility next to a supermarket. It is a different licence, but I am happy to take it on notice.

Clause passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:32): 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