HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-02-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LIQUOR LICENSING (SMALL VENUE LICENCE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 February 2013.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:20): I rise to speak on behalf of the Liberal opposition and express our support for this bill. The bill proposes to introduce the 12th class of liquor licensing in South Australia. We seem to have a liquor licence category for every situation imaginable, from clubs to hotels, special circumstances to entertainment, direct sales, retailers, wholesalers and restaurants. Now this bill proposes that a new class of licence be established, called the small venue licence.

We firmly support the idea of a licence that makes business more affordable and more attractive to entrepreneurs and adds life to our CBD. The government seems to be suggesting that by doing this, and in particular by removing the rights of residents, they are helping to deregulate the industry and therefore creating a more competitive market, but the proposal in itself is an admission of the failure by this government to provide the conditions for competitive business in South Australia. It is an admission that, after 11 years, the government has failed to establish a business environment that supports small business operators.

Businesses have been starved of opportunities. South Australia has the worst business conditions in Australia. South Australia has the highest taxes in Australia. In the September quarter of 2012, South Australia experienced a 28 per cent increase in insolvencies, the highest increase of all mainland states and almost three times the national increase. Winston Churchill once said of taxes:

For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

This bill is also an admission that this Labor government's bureaucracy has become so onerous that the only response they can think of is adding another one on top. Adding another layer of bureaucratic regulation does not equal deregulation.

On top of that, the Labor government has gone out of its way to promote a people-free zone in the CBD, including fighting tooth and nail in 2008 to close Adelaide's bars and clubs at 3am—a policy it still supports—introducing a new car park tax in the Adelaide CBD and introducing two part-day public holidays, which resulted in 66 per cent of South Australian restaurants closing for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve in 2012, up 19 per cent from the previous year.

It is little mystery why small businesses are struggling to stay afloat and compete in Adelaide and across the state. Labor has been slamming on the economic handbrake while claiming to be pushing hard for economic growth, but this Labor government is relying on the economic pedals being hidden from view to hide the fact that they have never known how to accelerate the economy or steer us towards growth.

The lack of direction is not just on the economic front. When it comes to alcohol policy in the CBD, they have been all over the place, swerving from one extreme to the other. While calling for a thousand flowers to bloom to unleash a new era of city vibrancy, the government has become tied up in its own contradictions, trying to be everything to everyone without delivering for anyone a coherent way forward.

They are calling for more bars while also saying they want bars closed. They say they want a vibrant city life but only for a few hours a night. They cut fees for small bars but only because they have put other licences out of reach of small businesses by jacking up licensing fees. They say they want to crack down on the availability of alcohol while proudly announcing they will put alcohol in every supermarket across the state.

They say they want to increase the number of live music venues by replacing licences that require venues to offer music with those that do not. They say they are responding to the needs of locals while removing the voice of the residents to be heard. They say that more police means less alcohol-fuelled violence but they cut $150 million from the police budget. This Labor government is drunk on power and has retreated to gutter politics to hide its consistent failings over 10 years.

They have accused us of opposing small bars when they knew clearly we supported them all along. They have attacked us for standing up for residents' rights by misleadingly claiming that it is about protecting the big end of town. The big end of town is strong enough to stand up for itself. These rights are there for residents and other South Australians. Let us remember that this bill allows any part of South Australia to become a prescribed area. That means it could potentially apply to any suburb, any neighbourhood, any street. It means that families are losing the right to say what happens in their neighbourhood.

The government proposal means that a large venue that has a capacity of 1,200 people would need to apply with all the usual appeal and community consultation provisions, but 10 venues side by side of 120 people capacity each would not. Throughout the debate on this issue the government has engaged in a dirty smear campaign in an attempt to impugn the integrity of the Liberal Party position. Not only did they incorrectly assert that the opposition was receiving direction from the AHA, but the Deputy Premier sent a threatening letter to the Law Society criticising them for standing up for residents and taking a position against the government.

Let me read a line from the Law Society's submission that the Deputy Premier was critical of, and I quote:

In our view, the proposed amendments have placed too much emphasis on benefiting licence holders and licence users at the expense of others, especially residents and neighbours.

That the Deputy Premier would be so offended by such sentiment says a lot about the mentality of this government. This Labor government has repeatedly tried to stifle dissenting voices, from residents to independent organisations like the society.

The provisions within the act to provide for a right of objection and the ability for councils to intervene were designed to protect community interests. The government appears to be arguing that small venues should not have to comply with the usual community considerations provided they have a small venue (and they are therefore potentially a small/low risk problem). Ironically, the government's vision is to have a series of these small/low risk venues clustered together.

The government has shown that it is hell-bent on removing the right of residents to have a say about what happens in their neighbourhood, and it is a shame that they have tried to tie the fate of the small bar licence class to yet another attempt to silence community participation. The Liberal Party supports enhanced choice for consumers and a more vibrant city—small bars are a part of that bigger challenge. But the government seems to only know one way of operating: announce and defend. The short-lived mantra of 'consult and decide' hardly left the Premier's mouth before it was consigned to being yet another broken promise from a government that is clueless about what real leadership means.

It does not mean telling people just to live with the government's decision. It does not mean replacing residents' rights with a right to be ignored. Over the last decade of the Labor government, we have seen countless examples of the government riding roughshod over concerned residents, and repeatedly cutting them out of having a say about developments in their area. Need I mention the Cheltenham Park Residents Association, the Save the St Clair Group, the Mount Barker and District Residents' Association or any of the thousands of other residents who have been treated with contempt by the government? The government has made it clear that it thinks it knows it all.

The government refers to other similar bar scenes in Melbourne and Sydney, both of which introduced a class of licence for small venues. But compare the government's capacity limit of 120 to that of Queensland where a small bar is defined as being licensed for 60. New South Wales has also announced that its small bar licence will soon have a capacity of 60 in some areas.

Now the Deputy Premier has said he does not intend for there to be bars set up in the southern end of the CBD, and in any case the legislation does not allow for a difference in capacity limits between different parts of the CBD. We know that, regardless of the stance of this place, the government has the numbers in the other place. We know the government would quite happily abandon the idea of small bars altogether if they thought they could blame it on the Liberal Party. We know that they have never really had the interests of entrepreneurs or small business in mind. Their economic track record shows that.

We have clearly and publicly stated our concerns about this bill, but we will not allow our legitimate concerns to be used as an excuse by Labor to hold up at least some relief for small business. Our concerns are on the public record. We will not be moving amendments to this bill. We as the Liberal Party have been consistent in our support for small bars, while strongly advocating for community interests. We have presented a coherent position on business trading across the liquor sector and have been strong advocates for opportunities for small business. This stands in stark contrast to the government.

As a Liberal Party, we also know that this reform is not the end point. This is but the start of some long overdue reform. It has taken the Labor Party 11 years to get to the starting blocks, and even now they are taking small steps. We look forward to putting the case to the state over the next 13 months as to why a Liberal government is the natural government for both small business and South Australia as a whole.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (16:29): I rise in support of this legislation. The creation of a small venue licence provides new commercial opportunities for entrepreneurs in Adelaide. It sits well with the Premier's announcement late last year to transform Adelaide's CBD into vibrant spaces that help to attract people to the heart of our city.

As a member of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, I had the opportunity to see how a city like Melbourne has transformed its laneways into vibrant areas and allowed those with the initiative to commence new small businesses to take up those spaces and bring people back to the city.

We all want to see a greater population in our city, but clearly we need to provide greater reason to attract people to the city. They need to have a variety of destinations and attractions, and somewhere different to catch up with others if they so choose. This is of course another initiative by the government that will support new private investment in the city.

One of the most exciting developments that we have at the moment is the Riverbank precinct, and this initiative will certainly build on the investment being made along the riverbank. It will assist in the linking of the north and south of city. As an example, we have already seen the success of Leigh Street. I had reason to go out to dinner at a restaurant in Leigh Street recently, and certainly the vibrancy was clearly there for everybody to see.

The aim of the bill is to provide a liquor licence that is flexible enough to accommodate a variety of small business models: small food-oriented businesses that want to sell alcohol; businesses that operate as restaurants during lunch and dinner or on certain nights of the week but as bars outside those times; small specialist bars such as wine or whiskey bars; and small bars that provide patrons with an alternative to large, traditional hotels and nightclubs.

The government understands the importance of reducing red tape, and the small venue liquor licence does just that. We all know that the current forms of liquor licensing give any person the right to object to the granting of a licence, and that the conciliation and legal processes an applicant needs to follow to deal with an objection can be drawn out and time consuming. The process for small venue licences will streamline this process, allowing the licence to be obtained more quickly and subsequently make the small venue licence an affordable option.

We are aware that industry participants have said they find navigating the current liquor licensing system expensive. One owner of Udaberri, on Leigh Street, said last year that the business spent $30,000 trying to find a suitable licence for their business. I reiterate that the small venue liquor licence supports those wanting to invest in our capital city and is an important step in making a Adelaide a more vibrant city.

As part of the government's plan to activate many of the city's laneways, the licence will generate interest in the establishment of hole-in-the-wall type venues which have flourished well in other capital cities. The sort of venues the licence will encourage fit well with South Australia's passion for good quality wine and food.

We market ourselves in this state as a lifestyle state, with good, clean, green food and wine. We need to offer alternative ways of being able to experience that lifestyle for those who live in the city, for those who work in the city (to give them a further reason for staying on after work), and for those who visit the city.

The sorts of wine bar venues that operate in and around the riverbank in Melbourne have demonstrated how such venues can add to the character of a city. It is something that would certainly be appreciated by the tourists who come here to South Australia and obviously to Adelaide in particular.

The proposal also provides provisions to encourage small venues to host live music—an area in which I definitely know our President has a strong interest. This will encourage business activity and diversification in the liquor market, and promote the live music industry. It will not only help encourage new venues but will assist established ones who want to operate under more flexible licences. Due to the restrictions of small venue licences on capacity and trading hours, venues will be more manageable, limiting the potential danger to patrons, and will encourage a broader range of people into the city to indulge in good quality venues.

I am pleased to hear the Hon. Stephen Wade say that the opposition supports this bill and will not be introducing amendments, but given that some in the opposition have sent out conflicting messages in recent times as to whether they would support this legislation, I think it worthwhile reiterating that this proposed legislation mirrors or is similar to that operating well interstate.

It is also my understanding that up to 12 parties have already expressed an interest in taking up this new proposed licence and there are more to come in the next few years. It makes enormous sense to see a different venue option for the CBD to attract people to the city and to add character to our city and I would urge all honourable members to support this legislation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:36): I rise to speak on behalf of the Greens and indicate our support for the Liquor Licensing (Small Venue Licence) Amendment Bill 2012. This bill before us amends the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 and it provides for a new category of liquor licence aimed at providing flexibility to the owners of small venues. I would stress that word 'venues'. It is not just bars that we are talking about. We are talking about a whole range of small venues. It does so by offering a new streamlined process for small venue licence applications and those are applications of up to 120 in capacity. Although I would note that not every one of these venues will indeed be the maximum amount. Many will be much smaller, but some indeed will be that number of 120 and that capacity is both internal and external.

Certainly, to give people an indication, I visited the Cuckoo Bar (which was mentioned in the debate on this bill in the lower house) and I understand that has a capacity of 112 or thereabouts. That is, to my mind, a small venue, and I certainly encourage anyone who is down the west end of Hindley Street to pop in and have a look at their venue at some stage and to see the niche market that they cater to and take note of the licence that sits on their wall, which is an entertainment licence but which prohibits that venue from acting as a nightclub, a karaoke bar and a few other categories.

I asked them at the time whether they had any indication on how they were to avoid being seen as a nightclub given that they actually open until the wee hours of the morning and so, in fact, would not necessarily apply to this particular category of licence given that they go well beyond 2am or, in fact, the midnight standard cut-off for this new licence. They said that, when they did ask, they were told by the licensing official that if they did not have too many flashing lights then they probably would not be mistaken for a nightclub. I did point out that they had a disco ball above a dance floor, they did play dance music and they did operate at night, but so far, luckily for them, they have not had much trouble with the licensing commission.

The licences that we are typically looking at here are restricted to the hours of operation of 11am until midnight, unless there is an application to have an authorised extension of up to 2am. This is important in terms of the standard licence that will, in fact, remove the additional current consents required around entertainment. Certainly members would be aware that I have a private members' bill to remove the definition of entertainment other than those prescribed adult entertainment areas from the Liquor Licensing Act as they are archaic in their application, and the nightclub definition given to the Cuckoo Bar is just one example where there is certainly a need for better clarity.

Entertainment beyond midnight will, however, still require the additional entertainment consents and will open these small venues, should they choose to open between midnight and 2am, to that quagmire of the liquor licensing enforcement telling them that they can or cannot play particular types of music or that their TV set being two metres by two metres-plus square is, in fact, a form of entertainment. The culture cops may, indeed, be knocking on their door to ascertain whether or not dubstep was on the licence and whether or not techno was played in the wee hours of the morning.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: You think I am joking. The licensees who had this experience know that I am not. I am deadly serious when I say I am glad to see, and welcome seeing, that particular issue has been addressed with this category of licence, but I put the government on notice that it needs to happen across the board. There are many venues that not only are restricted in the types of entertainment that they can provide, which is legal entertainment, but are given genre restrictions which are dictated by somebody who has nothing to do with the arts industry or, in fact, any expertise in music or entertainment, but by liquor licensing. It is a totally inappropriate level of bureaucracy and simply opens the gates for those people to end up in our court system paying the ridiculous amounts that they end up paying in what I believe is a lawyers' picnic, the liquor licensing regime in South Australia.

Getting back to the specifics of this bill, it will also only specifically apply to designated areas in the CBD. It enables the small operators to avoid satisfying the current needs test and therefore avoid the challenges from the big operators. The example that has been given, but it is certainly a common one, is that of a small operator wanting to provide Coopers' products or Port Dock Brewery ginger beer. They may, in fact, have opposition from their competitors should their competitors already be providing that type of alcohol. They may be providing it in a very different context and, certainly, the people that they would be providing it to may not want to go to their competitors to buy that product but, at the moment, under section 58, their competitors can force the point on that needs test—and, indeed, do.

The Attorney-General in the other place noted that, in fact, it led to particular venues being forced not to provide Australian and local alcohol, and I think that should be taken on board in this debate. In fact, in these particular cultures, we should be really supporting South Australia and supporting local produce, and that includes the alcohol that we serve.

The aim of this licence is, indeed, part of the government's seven planks, if you like, and that is to provide a vibrant city. At the moment it is focused on the CBD but I note that, after a year, there are provisions within this bill to see this particular licence expanded. What I will note at this point is that it was odd listening to the debate in the lower house where the members for Morphett and Schubert wanted the provisions of this bill for their local regions or electorates, yet there were some concerns being raised about how it would work in the CBD.

I believe that the government is taking a positive step in what is, in effect, a trial of these types of licence for South Australia, and working with one single council, which is the prescribed body. Council planning requirements will all still apply to these licences. All of the current regimes around ensuring that all of the due planning and application processes are followed and, in fact, licensing fees and so on, will still apply. Residents and councils will all still be able to ensure that a venue is operating under what are reasonable expectations and, certainly, such requirements as being a fit and proper person, and so on, will still all apply. There will be abilities for a venue to be seen as not appropriate and I would like to hear from the government some further elaboration on how we will ensure that there are not, in fact, undue problems as a result of this new licence category or any conflict with residents in particular in the CBD.

I have heard assurances from the government on this and I am willing to hear those assurances again and on the record in Hansard, but the record is not good on proper consultation and so the fact that this bill can be changed by regulation at any stage (I presume after the year trial from the minister) does not give me the greatest of comfort because this government's track record is not the best in terms of real consultation. So, I seek from the government some indication on how that process of a possible rollout of these provisions will be undertaken and what safeguards there are in the current practice to ensure that this new category of licence will not lead to undue and unforeseen effects, particularly with regard to residents.

However, it will indeed support small business and the diversity of small business. As I said, it will be a boon for live music and the cultural aspects of our city—all very laudable and welcome things. It will encourage diversification of the options available. It will provide jobs and, while they will all be on the smaller side of the industry, I think that is no bad thing. In fact, that is something that the Greens champion—local industry and small enterprise. But we have a long way to go and we are playing catch-up here.

While this is a trial for South Australia, I would note that WA, New South Wales, Victoria and, as was mentioned, Queensland, have all got similar licences to this. They all vary slightly in terms of the exact timing and the exact category but in general you can call them categories of small bar licences around the country. I will take up the point mentioned by the Hon. Stephen Wade and note that Queensland introduced a small venues licence or a small bars licence at the level of 60 but it was raised to 100 in April 2012. It was raised because many of those small businesses were finding that the numbers were not viable to sustain those particular venues. So, that was much welcomed within the industry there.

Now I move to the general debate that we have seen. We have seen this issue, I guess, become a lot more divisive than it needed to be. We have seen the AHA portrayed as being in opposition to this bill. As a Greens member, I would not accept money from the AHA and would not always agree with the AHA, but on this point when we had conversations with them they were far more concerned with the Late Night Trading Code of Practice and the supermarket sales of alcohol than they were with this bill. I put that on record. In fact, while there was some mention of their support for either 80 or 90 being the upper limit of this bill, they have always insisted to me that they would be comfortable with about 100 but, to use the words of Ian Horne, they were not going to die in a ditch over it.

It was a debate where we have seen the AHA in some ways vilified. We know that the AHA is an effective lobby for their members. Many of their members are suffering and trying to support live music and being hampered by the entertainment consents and other issues around liquor licensing, and the AHA knows full well that it is not in their best interests to have a regime that sees their members before the courts unnecessarily as well. They would like to see some of the provisions in this bill extended to their members as well, and I think that is fair enough. Certainly, it should not be an us-and-them debate when we are talking about a small venue versus an AHA member like the Wheatsheaf Hotel in Thebarton. It is a proud supporter of live music. Many members of the AHA are proud supporters of live music.

I wanted to put that on the record and also to note that the Clever Little Tailor on Peel Street has been much touted in this particular debate as well as suffering at the hands of the big players, and yet the AHA has actually been working with the Clever Little Tailor. It does not get the headlines, it does not buy into the polemics that is played out in this debate. I note that Crispian Fielke, one of the directors of the Clever Little Tailor, approached the AHA last September or October. He actually had a good conversation with the AHA. He went to them sounding out any likely objections that their bar might encounter, and my understanding is that they have worked quite constructively together.

What the AHA undertook to do was to help that venue lodge their application in a manner that avoided legal costs and unnecessarily alarming others in the precinct. That venue has now been granted a licence. It was granted that licence on 20 December without the requirement for legal support directly relating to that process. In fact, the AHA now provides the Clever Little Tailor with IR, health and safety and general licensing advice. That is the work of a good advocacy body, a union, if you like, or an industry representative—whichever way you wish to view the body. They are certainly effective in serving their members; they have the expertise. Certainly on this particular issue, I reiterate that they were not lobbying us to oppose this bill, and I thank them for their input.

We did not actually receive a direct submission from the Rundle Mall Management Authority, but I understand that that particular body, as reported in the media—and apologies to them if it is incorrect—was more favourable to an upper limit of 80 for these venues. I do note that Rundle Mall in fact covers a very small part of the area covered by this bill, so, while they may be comfortable with that particular limit in their precinct, it certainly was not something that was widely advocated by other bodies for across the CBD.

I want to commend in particular the active work of those who have a commitment and a passion for live music, not just in Adelaide but across Australia, and in particular SLAM (Save Live Australia's Music) which, for the past three years, has actually been galvanising support for retaining and supporting live music in this country. It has had to do so because live music is indeed under threat.

Members will be aware that I will move a motion tomorrow supporting live Australian music, and indeed SLAM. I note that this Saturday, 23 February, is SLAM Day around the country. There are many venues where people can go to see a live gig this Saturday night. I will provide members with more information about that tomorrow, and I hope to see you out there, Mr President, as I know you often are.

I thank Ryan Winter in particular from SLAM, as well as both the venues and artists who are banding together, most notably led by people such as Paul Kelly, who we know as a proud South Australian musician. Everything from Taasha Coats of The Audreys and bands like the Hilltop Hoods—all proud South Australian musicians who make their living from live music. I hope this bill goes some way to ensuring that future emerging artists can also make such a living from their music.

I also want to acknowledge the work of Raise the Bar. Many members would have received email communications from Raise the Bar over the past year or so. Raise the Bar has been a very successful campaign in alerting us to a really strong community groundswell in support of better liquor licensing laws and also better support in general for live music. In particular, I thank John Wardle for his input. I note that Ianto Ware was recently elevated to the live music coordinator position nationally, and his involvement with Raise the Bar and also locally in ensuring a great culture in Adelaide must be acknowledged.

The Law Society advice on this bill advises a reluctant opposition. I note that the Attorney-General has been highly critical of that advice. Given that it also advises a reluctant opposition of my bill to remove the entertainment definition from the Liquor Licensing Act, I would possibly echo the Attorney-General's opposition and lack of acceptance of that particular advice, possibly not as aggressively as the Attorney-General, but certainly no less passionately in terms of being committed to real reform that supports vibrancy in our city.

I have spoken with a number of venues and licensees over the past year, but also specifically in relation to this bill, many of whom have had terrible journeys. Suzie Wong's Room in the Charles Sturt precinct on Port Road has had all sorts of issues because the licence regime at present does not reflect their particular business model. Certainly they have ended up facing prosecution for the fact that they went with a particular licence, because they could not find quite the right one to fit the square a peg into the round hole, but they have entertainment, food and alcohol and it is a fabulous little establishment. But, whilst they were allowed to have entertainment, of course, as many members would be aware, they were not allowed to advertise that they had entertainment.

They in fact found themselves before the courts, having been monitored by the police who watched not only their Facebook page but also made sure that they did not put up posters outside the venue. They have quite needlessly and unnecessarily faced prosecution for advertising that they have a band on a particular night, playing in the front window while people enjoy their meals. Probably they would have benefited greatly from this particular category of licence, which certainly fits our current business and entrepreneurial climate far more, but certainly it will not apply because they do not fall into the catchment zone of the CBD.

A venue like the Tuxedo Cat will be too large for this. There seems to be some confusion among the general public and some MPs alike (and I will not name them) that this category applies to the pop-up bars we see, particularly around the Fringe and Festival periods. It is certainly not what we are talking about here, but rather the ongoing holes in the walls, for which Melbourne is rightfully known but which are emerging more and more across all the capital and major regional cities in Australia, and Adelaide should be no different.

There is a demand for these venues and, if there is not, they will of course go out of business. The business model will decide whether or not they succeed or fail, but what should not decide whether they succeed or fail is the ability of competitors to drag them through the courts, with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees racking up before they can even open the door. That sounds a little like a fear campaign, but I have heard time and again of this happening.

Most of the industry I spoke to, however, have just as many concerns regarding the late night code of practice and whether or not their venues of over 200 (which in some cases can be still quite small, if they are just over 200) will be required to have things like metal detectors and CCTV and the onerous burden that that may require of venues that are doing the right thing, that do not have a bad track record, that have never had instances of violence and have never needed the police to come out to their venue for any situations of alcohol-related violence, that do the right thing and provide a convivial and pleasant atmosphere. Those venues are a little concerned that that will similarly see them unable to conduct their business.

I will at this point note that it is nice to see the government championing small enterprise and small bars and not buying into the law and order rhetoric that it normally does, and for a change to be debating a liquor licensing bill in this place without that law and order debate being used to beat the opposition and the crossbenchers on the head. I will at this point acknowledge the work of the Hon. Michelle Lensink of the Liberal Party, who has been a long-time champion of exactly the type of businesses we are talking about in this bill. Certainly she is responsible for the current committee of inquiry that is looking into barriers to small licensees.

Small licensees actually will be greater than the 120 we are talking about in this particular small venue licence, and certainly that work should not be ignored by government. I think it is an important part of the parliamentary process to have proper scrutiny and to give these particular licensees and other stakeholders—not only in the live music sector but across these sorts of cultural and entertainment enterprises—a voice to be heard and to ensure that our legislation in fact reflects the 21st century and not the 19th century as I think, sadly, some of our Liquor Licensing Act does.

While this has been a polemicised debate, it has actually been fantastic to see people actively engaged in this debate. Whether it is the Facebook pages or whether it is people ringing in to talkback radio, it certainly has people fired up. It certainly has Matt and Dave wondering why everyone cares about small bars. I can tell Matt and Dave that it is actually because people do care about culture, music and having a quality of life and not just going to work and coming home and watching TV.

As I said before, a venue with a TV of under two metres by two metres, a poker machine or piped music is not subject to the same restrictions as a venue where you have a poet doing spoken word or where you have a band that plays on a Saturday night or where you have people basically engaging in creativity to while away their leisure time or, indeed, being gainfully employed as a DJ or to be paid a little bit as a musician or to paint a scene and then sell that artwork as often happens at the Dragonfly Bar.

There are all sorts of things that this particular licence will enable that currently our archaic laws in fact restrict. With that, I do welcome that new-found commitment across the board, I believe, and the passion that we have seen from the community, not just from young people but from a wide diversity of ages and types of people who want more out of life. They want a real quality of life and they value the arts.

I would note, however, those people who are very supportive of live music would be very disappointed that, in the past 11 years, this government, which was dragged kicking and screaming to establish a live music fund of $500,000, has in fact never increased that amount by a single cent in the whole term of the Rann-Weatherill government. I certainly call on the Rann-Weatherill government to increase its funding to live music in the near future if they have a serious commitment to live music. If Labor loves live music, as they say both in the New South Wales and South Australian campaign pages, then I would imagine they will back up that loving live music with cold, hard cash.

I acknowledge the President's commitment and note that he, Michelle Lensink and I were all at the Jade Monkey some time back, and a then member of the Premier's staff, Lois Boswell, also joined us. It was the controversial 'pizzagate' night when the Lord Mayor, Stephen Yarwood noisily handed out pizza. It was a forum on live music and liquor licensing in this state. It has been fantastic to see the journey we have taken in putting forward issues and barriers that are facing licensees, musicians and those who want this vibrant Adelaide. It has been fantastic to see such a range of activity. Whether it is the live music Thinker in Residence, whether it is this particular bill before us or whether it is a whole myriad of other initiatives, I do welcome them.

However, we still have a lawyers' picnic. We are still far too adversarial in our approaches here when it comes to resolving issues. With the Jade Monkey, of course, that venue still has yet to open its doors in its new chosen site, and it has yet to do so because they are suffering from the current restrictions of taking up what was the Heaven licence in that particular location at St Paul's, which had quite significant restrictions which applied to a nightclub that had had some issues.

Certainly it was a very different venue in nature to the Jade Monkey, yet it is not the Jade Monkey's record that is being looked at and it is not the Jade Monkey's licence that is being transferred to that new venue. It is in fact the Jade Monkey being required, again, to fit the square peg in the round hole of the St Paul's venue. I do hope that we will soon see the Jade Monkey's doors reopen, and that the next time we are having such a forum we will be celebrating our achievements of actually having extra money for live music in this state, real support for a vibrant city and beyond, and something like what we are seeing in New South Wales—an approach that is much more conciliatory.

I draw members' attention to a particular iconic venue in New South Wales, the Annandale Hotel, which is pretty much dying a death of a thousand cuts as it deals with the legal fees associated with noise complaints from residents. It is a long time venue, and an iconic pub that has had bands there for a very long time, and I commend the work of both Jamie Parker, member for Balmain, and also the new Lord Mayor of Leichardt, in looking at a different way of doing this, in keeping things out of the court, setting up processes for conciliation and monthly meetings between residents and venues, and having accords and so on—the things that the Hon. Michelle Lensink and I have been talking about for many years, and that is certainly the way forward.

I would love to see further legal reform in the area of liquor licensing that looks at these conciliatory approaches, the carrot approach—and creating communities and working with communities and consulting with communities—rather than the stick that I think we are going to be seeing in the near future with the law and order debates, and the Late Night Trading Code of Practice. I will have some questions during the committee stage, and I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:06): I rise to make some comments in relation to this bill and I am pleased to follow the Hon. Tammy Franks in her contribution, and also the Hon. Stephen Wade, who is the lead speaker for the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council on this bill. I note that this is a timely debate as it comes prior to mad March, but the Fringe has opened, and we have the Festival and a number of events coming so, no doubt, this legislation will be passed hopefully in time for some venues to establish and to be able to serve the people who will be in and around the city for those events.

I would like to thank the Hon. Tammy Franks for her contribution and her part in the mutual appreciation society on this piece of legislation. The Liberal Party does support small bars and we always believe in reducing unnecessary red tape. The Hon. Tammy Franks was the organiser of what she titled 'The big night out' in April 2011 when we visited a whole lot of venues for 6½ or seven hours—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: It was daylight saving so there was an extra hour.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Daylight saving indeed, so we got the extra hour in there as well. That was a very useful experience to understand liquor licensing issues and issues facing venues, and some of those young entrepreneurs who wish to open venues which perhaps do not fit within the normal constraints of our liquor licensing laws. The Hon. Tammy Franks also referred to the Jade Monkey forum in May last year which was attended by three members of this chamber, and yourself, Mr President, and we look forward to some live music performances by yourself at some stage—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —when that may occur! There were a range of difficulties that licensees had experienced. Some of them were quite difficult to comprehend and they were having ongoing problems with regulators. I would like to commend the Hon. Tammy Franks for her work. She has a fine-grained appreciation for this particular issue and she ought to be listened to. If the government had any sense, it would consult her on these issues. A number of us have probably also had meetings with Ianto Ware both in his capacity as the CE of Renew Adelaide and his other capacity since he has moved on.

I first raised this issue in parliament in July last year to refer it to a parliamentary committee, which had gone there as of late last year, but the government said no to that particular inquiry so it will be interesting to see whether we can come up with any other provisions that are not in this bill. It is not what I would describe as a large bill; it has 13 clauses so, in the scheme of things, it is not huge. In moving that motion in July last year on small bars, I made the following comments:

A number of these people who are involved in starting up small venues do not use merely the selling of alcohol as their primary source of income, but they do require it as a revenue stream to subsidise their core business such as an art studio or a video game lounge and it is something that their patrons expect. They might go there for a show and they want to have a glass of wine, beer or whatever it is they want to have. I think that is perfectly reasonable, and I do not think that those sorts of businesses in any way present a major threat to safety in the city.

Mr President, I stand by those comments. The committee has now advertised, including on Twitter, and has received a number of submissions, so we look forward to its deliberations.

In July last year, when I happened to be in Melbourne on a private trip with my husband, we took the opportunity to look at some of the laneway venues. Melbourne is often cited as a city that does things differently, and I do note that the city of Melbourne includes pop-ups and laneways, as well as what the Hon. Tammy Franks refers to as 'holes in the wall'. By day, the spaces for some of those laneway venues are used as loading zones or for rear access for businesses. By night, adjacent cafes often take over those spaces with alfresco tables.

One venue that Scott and I were particularly taken with was Chuckle Park, located in the CBD, where service was provided from a caravan and the space was decorated with plants and a fair amount of kitsch. I took a picture of its liquor licence, as members of parliament are wont to do, and I do note that it is in fact a restaurant and cafe licence. I think some of the licences that are provided for all those innovative places that operate in Melbourne probably come under various licence classes; maybe they do not have the issue of the culture police that we seem to have in South Australia.

We did not specifically seek out premises which might be covered by different licensing; it was more of an incidental look, so we cannot describe it as anything of great—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: A bar crawl!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Not a bar crawl, minister; not at my age. We also attended a live music venue where one of Scott's old band mates was playing; he was once in a band called Kelvinator in his early 20s, and people can see clips on YouTube if they care to do so. So, we visited the Corner Hotel in East Richmond, which is well-known and which is obviously a pub. We did not come across any of the small bar licence venues in our small non-pub crawl.

To return to the issue in South Australia, unfortunately, Labor was not interested in working collaboratively, as far as I am aware, with any of the other parties—certainly not with the opposition, neither through a committee or by sharing the submissions they received. I would like to say more on that towards the end of my speech.

In my understanding and reading of the Liquor Licensing Act, I believe that it must seek to strike a balance. In recent years, this parliament has debated a number of areas which have aimed to update the regulation of liquor licensing: one being preventing harm; secondly, regulation of liquor outlets; and, thirdly, measures which relate to protection for local residents.

In relation to preventing harm from the overconsumption of alcohol, we have had changed definitions of intoxication, but those have not been utilised to any great degree. We also try to prevent harm by preventing the intrusion at licensed premises by undesirables, and so this parliament has supported things such as barring measures and expiations or on-the-spot fines for people who behave badly in licensed premises. My leader in this place, the Hon. David Ridgway, was a very outspoken advocate for that particular measure, and we amended that particular clause to include bad language, which is often a precursor to violent behaviour.

Secondly, in relation to the regulation of liquor outlets, I would also like to refer back to the debate that we had in 2011, which was a ridiculous attempt by this government to shut down the night-time economy. The Legislative Council proudly stopped that piece of nonsense, which Labor's own supporters (particularly United Voice) did not support, and the government's performance left it rather red-faced as it sided with the knee-rug and Horlicks brigade who cannot understand, 'Why do young people need to be out so late?'

One of the documents that was provided to me by the government in favour of that bill was researched by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research entitled, 'The association between alcohol outlet density and assaults on and around licensed premises'. Its conclusion was that 'limiting the density of alcohol outlets may help limit the incidence of assault', and while I have just stated that I do not believe increasing the incidence of small bars will lead to increased violence, I do believe that the use of that document shows the level of hypocrisy of this government. Indeed the minister said at the third reading of that bill on 28 July 2011:

It is important that we look at the evidence before us and the evidence is quite clear. The evidence shows that alcohol-related incidents, particularly around our entertainment precincts, are on the increase.

Later in that speech, 'This problem is getting progressively worse.' I put on the record two questions for the government: does the government stand by those specific comments; and, secondly, what evidence can they provide regarding the number of incidents over time?

We then saw the introduction of a new tax on licensed premises which would have sent a lot of small licensees into financial difficulty through the so-called risk-based licensing, which was restructured only after well-known Adelaide DJ, Driller Jet Armstrong, organised a Facebook petition of over 4,000 people. That was two years ago. It has taken the government two years to come up with something as it has tried to rebuild some bridges with the sector, and as has been noted by certain journalists, the small bar licence amendments do not cost anything, so it is something that they can bang on about as an achievement.

I turn now to the third issue that I think the legislation seeks to deal with, which is protection for local residents, and this is something that should be of concern. I think we should try and minimise conflict between residents and licensed premises wherever possible. On radio the Attorney-General and planning minister has been dismissive of potential conflict with local residents, and this is in spite of the fact that he is bringing into the city a regime known as Catalyst Science, which is a really anything goes, mixed-use developments and the very places where residential apartments will exist along with all sorts of other uses including bars.

The Liberal Party believes that the best opportunity to resolve conflict is at the front end and my understanding is that, in practice, the right of objection by residents usually leads to conciliation conferences, and the court process is probably something that is used more often by competing bars and that should be addressed by some other means.

The Hon. Stephen Wade and I did some media on 7 February, and this solicited a letter which was dated the following day by the Attorney-General, and I would just like to read that into the record for the benefit of debate. It says:

Dear Michelle,

I write regarding your comments on Adelaide radio on 7 February 2013 about the Liquor Licensing (Small Venue Licence) Amendment Bill 2012.

In particular I note your remarks about consultation you have undertaken with small venue 'stakeholders' regarding the proposed capacity of a small venue licence.

He then goes on to quote me, and I said:

'Our view, and...representations that we've received from stakeholders, supported 80.' (891 ABC Adelaide. 7 February 2013.)

Over the last six months I have met with a number of key groups in this debate including existing small venue operators and industry bodies on numerous occasions.

The overwhelming feedback of this consultation was that a maximum capacity of less than 120 persons would make such a venture entirely unviable and would remove the very flexibility that this Bill intends to provide. Groups such as Renew Adelaide and the Adelaide Fringe argued strongly for a capacity of up to 150 persons.

In contrast, the only group I am aware that has argued for a capacity of 80 persons is the Australian Hotels Association. A position which is indeed identical to the Liberal Party's current position—

which is not correct—

For my benefit, it would be appreciated if you were able to provide further advice as to what interest bodies have determined 80 persons to be an appropriate number and the arguments that have been put forward by these groups in favour of this capacity, along with any submissions they provided to you.

Yours sincerely, John Rau.

I replied to the Attorney-General and would like to read that into the record. I wrote:

Dear John,

Thank you for your letter dated 8 February 2013 in relation to my comments about the Liquor Licensing (Small Venue Licence) Amendment Bill 2012 made on ABC Radio on 7 February 2013.

The Liberal Party sought feedback from a number of stakeholders as part of our due diligence process. The Law Society of South Australia—

and the Hon. Stephen Wade has made comments on this—

believes that the current legislation does not require amendment. The proposed capacity of 80 was contained in a submission from the Rundle Mall Management Authority.

We did not receive written submissions from Renew Adelaide or the Adelaide Fringe. Indeed, considering the vast resources of the State Government, especially when compared with those afforded to the Opposition, it would be most appreciated if you would supply copies of all the submissions you have received on this issue. In turn, and upon request, I will be happy to retrieve all relevant submissions made to the Liberal Party.

Furthermore and most importantly, it was not an AHA proposal that both you and the Premier continue to erroneously refer to as the source of the Liberal proposed amendment.

Perhaps, also you were not aware that I stated you were misrepresenting the Liberal Party's position in that same interview in which you stated:

...hopefully we'll get it through. But it'll be over the opposition of the Liberal Party, it seems...

As South Australia's chief law officer I trust that you did not intend to utter such a gross misrepresentation of the facts, but rather were uninformed that the Liberal Party does support the bill.

You would be aware that the Liberal Party and the Legislative Council opposed your government's attempts to shut down licensed premises across the State from 4-7am in 2011, so we welcome your belated embrace of the late night economy and the vibrant city agenda.

In closing, I look forward to further cooperative relations with you on this and other issues. Indeed, I would greatly appreciate if you would apply the same haste you have exercised in this matter to your significant tree laws which, despite lobbying from several Members for more than a year, have failed to spur your office into action or resolution.

Yours sincerely, Michelle Lensink.

I am pleased to support the bill. I look forward to further reform and, indeed, I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General acknowledged that this whole debate has highlighted the need for additional reform in the liquor licensing area.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:22): I will speak briefly this evening on behalf of Dignity for Disability in support of the Liquor Licensing (Small Venue Licence) Amendment Bill. When I say 'briefly', I should say that I mean briefly, unlike some of the ridiculous circus that has been going on in the public realm over this debate in the past few weeks. In fact, I believe a media commentator (in fact, the Hon. Ms Franks mentioned him), Mr Matthew Abraham, speculated recently that this issue is taking up too much of our leaders' time.

Of course, I am always one for healthy debates and discussion and amendment to legislation and, certainly, I think that this issue should matter to all of us, because it clearly matters to a lot of people in our community. However, I will go as far as to say that on this matter we do seem to be going round in circles to some extent. People are not recognising the evolution of culture, venues and entertainment and, especially, of 'hipsterness' in this town.

If you are not sure what a hipster is or, indeed, what a hipster bar is, you should certainly get yourself down to one of them, particularly the ones that the Hon. Ms Franks has already done me the service of mentioning, but I will certainly talk about one in particular, later, because they are an often overlooked and undervalued race in our society, the old hipsters—or young hipsters, as it would be, fittingly.

As members have no doubt noticed, while I am not necessarily the most typical young person you would have come across, as I put it to my staff member just a few minutes ago when we were working on the speech, I am hip to the extent of knowing where it is at: I do not always know what it is, though. But, I am young, and chances are, hopefully, I will be alive further into this century than most of you here in this chamber will be.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: No offence. In my future years I would like to live in a city where people stop making jokes about the lights turning out at 9pm. I would like it to be a pulsating (I am sick of using the word 'vibrant') place. We need to imagine South Australia as the pulsating state. 'The Pulsate State'—I like it! I would like it to be a pulsating place where people can enjoy a diverse range of arts and culture, live music, festivals and general good times. So, I want young people to be able to do their 'thang'. I would also like international backpackers and world travellers to land here and take advantage of our city centre and all it has to offer. I would like people to add Adelaide to their itinerary rather than bypassing it on a flight between Sydney and Perth, and that ain't going to happen when you are carrying on like this.

There has been endless harping on about Queensland's similar small venue licence, but I think we could also look further abroad. I think we need to look at places like Spain and Portugal, and I have attempted to research this via the library but it turns out that the provision of information in English is somewhat limited—I guess, for understandable reasons. Unfortunately, when it comes to European languages, French has always been my thing as well as a bit of Spanish but when it comes to Portuguese I let myself down more than I would like. C'est la vie.

In Spain, many people drink and eat at tapas bars. They eat and consume drinks, including alcohol, while standing. Just because they are not sitting down to a five-course meal does not mean they are not eating and consuming alcohol responsibly. It is just often the way they do food in Spain. We have moved past a steak and three veg dinner or a 'schnitty' at the pub being the only food options available in modern multicultural Adelaide. It is 2013, people. Let's get with the program. Debating whether a sit down meal is available is not really relevant to this day and age nor to the type of venue that we are talking about in this legislation.

I believe the city of Lisbon, the capital of Portugal, has the highest density of small bars in the world in the Bairro Alto region. Most are small bars you would not know existed in daylight but that open up onto streets in the evening and, in some cases, the early hours of the morning. Sure, it is not perfect and at times there is antisocial behaviour, as there can be in any size bar, but for the most part residents and bars exist in harmony.

It might be providing entertainment in a different way to what we are used to doing, but I believe that is the way we should be heading. Quite frankly, it is far preferable to the huge venues that need dozens of muscled security and metal detectors to ensure the safety of its patrons with that safety still not guaranteed as we have so tragically seen in recent months.

Udaberri, which has already been mentioned for good reason, in newly regenerated Leigh Street is a good example of what this type of new category licence could apply to. At Udaberri they provide tapas and pintxos and one can consume enough food to account for an ample meal. Whilst I have not been there myself as yet, my staff assure me that the food, drinks, music, service and atmosphere at this venue are fabulous. It is young people doing good things in a new way in a place that was previously a pretty quiet part of town, and I think we should encourage more of this.

The debate about numbers is perhaps a relevant one but I do not think that reducing the number to 80 in terms of capacity under this legislation is necessary. There are significant expenses in providing a bar for up to 120 people. Security, for example, is a considerable cost burden and I believe reducing the numbers to 80 on this licence would make some bars not financially viable. For instance, 120 could be enough to tip over the threshold in terms of needing extra security but 80 patrons would not necessarily provide the opportunity to recoup those costs. A bar like Udaberri, to my understanding, has never had fights or bikie brawls, nor any police callouts. It is really not small bars that are responsible for antisocial behaviours, shootouts and drunken riots. These small venues are not the ones whose operations we need to review. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:29): I rise briefly to indicate my support for the Liquor Licensing (Small Venue Licence) Amendment Bill 2012. As members would know, the bill amends the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 to provide for a new category of liquor licence aimed at providing flexibility to the owners of small venues and a new streamlined process for licence applications.

It is intended to encourage small specialist bars, hybrid venues that operate as restaurants during peak mealtimes, small bars outside those times and live music venues, the sorts of venues that are becoming increasingly popular, particularly amongst those seeking an alternative to nightclubs, hotels and large entertainment venues. More to the point, it is intended to rejuvenate the city and make use of the many underutilised laneways in the Adelaide CBD.

In terms of the streamlined application process, the main features of the bill are that applications will be determined by the commissioner and there will be no general right of objection but, rather, a general right to make submissions. Venue capacities will be limited to 120 people. The police commissioner will retain the right to intervene in an application and will retain the right to seek a review of the commissioner's decision in the Licensing Court on 'fit and proper person' and 'public interest grounds'. Applicants will also retain the right to seek a review of the commissioner's decision.

The bill has been the subject of consultation, and I understand that the government has had feedback from stakeholders on these issues. One of the main points of contention revolves around what the magic number ought to be in regards to the capacity of small venues. As it currently stands, the government is sitting at 120 and the opposition, as I understand it, at 80.

Various stakeholders, including the Australian Hotels Association, Renew Adelaide, the Adelaide West End Association, the Rundle Mall Management Authority and the Adelaide City Council, and, importantly, small entrepreneurs, who typically run specialist bars, have also expressed a view on this and other issues to varying degrees.

The AHA's position is that a capacity of 120 is a large venue when considering that there will be no obligation for dining and that the majority of existing licensed venues have a capacity of much less than this in their main bar rooms. They contend that if this category of licence is in fact to be a low entry point for young entrepreneurs then a more realistic capacity reflecting this would be much less than 100, and perhaps around 60 to 80. The Rundle Mall Management Authority has also indicated a preference for a capacity of 80.

Renew Adelaide, the Adelaide West End Association and many small entrepreneurs, on the other hand, have, as I understand it, indicated their support for the government's position, both in relation to capacity and other aspects of the bill. Small entrepreneurs in particular have expressed concern that the current licensing regime simply does not accommodate the kind of businesses that they are seeking to establish in Adelaide, predominantly because of the associated high cost and red tape.

The general consensus appears to be that, under the current regime, applicants seeking to open small or hybrid venues will agree to just about any condition on their licence—including, in at least one case, restrictions on the types of beers they can sell—just to get their foot in the door. Further, they simply cannot compete with larger hotels in terms of objections, red tape and operating costs.

The complaints about high costs relate more to the amendments regarding objections rather than capacity, and I tend to agree that a more simplified process, whereby the commissioner can make an assessment of an application without the need for a tribunal hearing and without a formal objection process, would be beneficial.

I have considered the issue of capacity in particular, predominantly from a viability point of view. In fact, just last week, I paid a visit to Udaberri in Leigh Street and discussed the issue at length with Rob Dinnen (one of the co-owners of that venue) to get a feel for what existing venue operators thought about the proposed amendments. I was pleasantly surprised at how nice a venue is Udaberri, and my visit also gave me a pretty good indication of just how small are some of these venues. From memory (and I may have to be corrected on this) Udaberri currently has approval for a maximum capacity of 121 without furniture and 96 with furniture. This includes 16 outdoor places. Given that the venue is furnished, its actual capacity inside is limited to 80. Walking into the venue you get an immediate sense of a different sort of atmosphere to, say, a pub, and there is no question that it caters to a different sort of crowd to large entertainment venues and nightclubs.

I am told that it is the sort of place you go perhaps after work to unwind or for a drink with friends. It is a very relaxed atmosphere. You do not go there to dance and party—you go there to share a bottle of wine with friends and socialise with other like-minded people. It is one of a number of unique boutique-style venues around Adelaide's CBD that is gaining popularity because it provides a long overdue alternative to the venues we are more accustomed to.

Back on the issue of capacity, as I see it there is absolutely no point introducing these new measures if the number we attach to the bill is going to be unviable for the operators of these venues. In terms of other states, we know that some jurisdictions have capacities of much less than 120, and in some cases half that number, but it is important to note that those eastern states also have four times the population of Adelaide. It is therefore much more viable in those states for small venues to operate with smaller capacities than it would be in Adelaide. What is more, a maximum capacity of 120, if that, will probably only be reached on two or three nights a week. During the rest of the week many venues would probably only just break even.

With respect to issues concerning building amenities and the like, I understand that any venue seeking approval for a capacity of 99 or more would have to go through the ordinary Building Code of Australia approval process. This bill will not alter that in any way. For these reasons, I indicate that I will support capping capacity at 120.

In closing, we know that businesses across the board are struggling in today's economic climate. In fact, just today we heard news of the fact that the Norwood precinct is looking very bare because lessees who simply cannot afford their overheads are closing their doors. Any suitable steps likely to inject economic activity back into an area should be welcomed. If the amendments prove beneficial in the CBD, then I would welcome similar measures in other areas of Adelaide as well.

I should add that, like other members, I am concerned about encouraging a culture of alcohol and excessive drinking, and I certainly would not be supportive of the proposed measures if I thought they would contribute to this. In short, I do not think they do. I note the comments of the Hon. Tammy Franks about the regulations, and I would also like to hear from the government on this issue. With that I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (17:38): I do not believe there are any further second reading contributions, so by way of concluding remarks I thank all honourable members who have contributed to the second reading debate and thank them for their support for this important bill. The bill is a very important step in the evolution of Adelaide becoming a more vibrant city that supports creativity and entrepreneurship. The small venue licence needs to be introduced to provide flexibility and capacity to allow these venues to flourish in our city.

I was particularly pleased to see that the Liberal opposition is prepared to support this bill, even though they were dragged kicking and screaming into this space. We know that they were not particularly supportive at the outset, but I am pleased that they have seen the error of their ways and seen how important it is that this bill go ahead, and I am very pleased that they now bring their support to this important bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I made these comments in my second reading speech: we were advised in the debate in 2011 that alcohol-related violence in the precincts of licensed premises was on the increase, and it was this minister who made those comments. Does the minister have any data she can provide to support those comments that she made at that stage, and can she comment on what has taken place since?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am not aware of any recent or new data in relation to alcohol-related violence. I am certainly aware of data that I brought into this place some time ago when I was minister for liquor licensing and, if I recall, that data showed a relationship between the hours that a licensed premises was open (particularly around clubs) and alcohol-fuelled violence.

I believe it showed a peak in episodes somewhere between midnight and 3am and then through to 6am. These licences that we are talking about here come under a standard licence until midnight and they would need to apply for an extension until 2 o'clock if they wanted to and they would need to meet provisions required to extend their licence. Our view is that many of these premises will only want to operate until midnight.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the minister for those comments. What about the issue of the density of licensed premises?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We have put into this bill a number of safeguards to reduce any associated or potentially related episodes, or increase in alcohol-related episodes such as limited hours and the smaller capacity of people.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the minister advise if, under any circumstances, a venue applying and holding this licence will be able to trade beyond 2am?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: No.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the minister with reference to the prescribed area outline exactly where this bill will apply, in terms of the prescribed area, and what safeguards there would be in terms of residential areas in the city, and the introduction and opening of venues using this licence?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that in the first 12 months a prescribed area would be the CBD, so it is limited to the CBD. After that it can be extended beyond the CBD but only by regulation which can be disallowed. There are also requirements around consultation for that with the council and other prescribed bodies in section 40A(4)(a) and (b). I am also advised and reminded that these provisions do not affect planning laws so they remain in place, and these venues can only be placed in those zones that have been appropriately designated for that type of establishment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Would the minister like to outline which zones that applies to?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Basically those zoned to take other than non-residential development.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I note that the provisions of this bill could be expanded beyond the CBD after a year, and that the minister, as she quite rightly identified, under clause 8, new section 40A. New section 40A(5) states:

The minister must consult in such a manner as he or she thinks fit with the prescribed bodies in relation to any proposed regulations declaring an area to be a prescribed area.

Can the minister outline what that process is intended to be in terms of the government's intentions? Do they intend to expand this bill after a year; how will they consult and work not only with local councils but with other potential bodies who can also be added to this list; and will councils be able to approach government to take up these provisions?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that nothing definitive has been decided at this point in time, but it is believed that it is highly likely that councils will approach us and request to have the same sorts of provisions available to them, particularly in relation to designing, developing or adding to entertainment strips. We have not defined who the prescribed interests are, but obviously all key stakeholders will be consulted. Groups such as the AHA and the unions, etc., are obviously key players in this, and we are committed to consulting in a genuine way.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have one final question: will venues be able to have burlesque entertainment?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, at this point in time, we have not finalised our list of prescribed entertainment; however, I am advised that it has not included considerations around burlesque entertainment, but it has excluded adult entertainment.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 13) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (17:55): 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