Friday, February 12, 2010

Sometimes it doesn't pay to be shy

For those who want to know how much a rally can make a difference, read this (just rediscovered by me) parliamentary account of how the Live Music Rally in Adelaide on July 14 2001 drew focus on the need to act in preventing the demise of local live music.

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

Wednesday 10 July 2002

LIQUOR LICENSING (MISCELLANEOUS)

AMENDMENT BILL

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 May. Page 138.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg): I rise to support the bill, subject

to one matter—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: This is a terrible trend, isn’t it? Listen

to this: subject to one matter, which I will address and on

which I will seek some explanation—and which I am sure

will be readily provided. Save and except for the exclusion

of the proposed variation of the review and appeal process,

the bill repeats the provisions of the Liquor Licensing

(Review Appeals and Noise Complaints) Amendment Bill

2001 with the incorporation of a number of amendments

proposed by the Hon. Angus Redford.

The history of this legislative reform is well and comprehensively recorded in the debates of members in the other

place, and I do not propose to traverse them in detail. Suffice

to say that the foresight and passion for the live music

industry’s survival and advancement by the Hon. Diana

Laidlaw will always be a shining example of the commitment

to cause in this parliament.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It was Angus Redford actually.

Ms CHAPMAN: Diana Laidlaw.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I recall the election campaign of 1993—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: —when she opened early with her

proposals for young musicians, and she has not abated in her

actions to give them a future. Perhaps the honourable

member’s responsibilities in the area of planning have given

her a particular capacity and understanding of the conflicting

interests of parties and the path to resolution, which is the

subject of this bill.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: The working group chaired by Angus

Redford undertook comprehensive consultation, and not only

agreed and recorded 10 basic principles fundamental to its

consideration of options but also developed a set of amendments to enhance the objectives of this bill. I note that those

amendments where relevant to the Liquor Licensing Act have

now been incorporated in this bill.

I have read the debates with interest and delight. They

span from July to October 2001 and I have observed that,

although the Hon. Sandra Kanck held out with her amendments almost until the bitter end, the spirit of compromise


Wednesday 10 July 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

ultimately prevailed and the bill presented for consideration

now reflects that. I also note the significant contribution made

to this progress being made by the Australian Hotels Association. It, too, has presented an initial position and a letter that

each member has now received confirms its willingness to

resolve the difficult matter in the spirit of compromise. The

letter dated 29 May 2002 and signed by Mr John Lewis,

General Manager, states:

The Australian Hotels Association (SA) is pleased to support the

Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2002 which we

believe is an important step forward in securing the future of the live

music industry for the South Australian community.

The AHA appreciates the level of support from all parties which

has been shown on this issue, allowing a sensible and balanced

approach which will meet the needs of the live music industry

without disadvantaging local residents with legitimate concerns. We

would especially like to acknowledge the support of the previous

government which set up the Live Music Working Group, the current

government which has moved quickly to adopt the recommendations, and the Australian Democrats which has long championed the

cause of live music.

The result is an historic piece of legislation which no doubt will

be adopted by other jurisdictions grappling with similar issues. We

would like to thank the parliament for its support on this issue and

we look forward to the passing of the bill in both houses of

parliament.

For the record, that correspondence has been forwarded to a

number of members of parliament. Personally, I say that I

was surprised to see a move to include ‘the live music

industry’ in the objects of the act. The passing of this bill will

enshrine this industry as one of only three examples recorded

therein, joining tourism and hospitality as an associated

industry to the liquor industry. I expect they will be pleased—

as they should be—and I have no doubt they will be the envy

of others. It is a clear reflection of the cross-sectional support

this industry now enjoys. Doubtless, the public support

demonstrated during the rally on 14 July 2001 has been

acknowledged in this debate, and I congratulate those

participating, as their views have surely been heard.

Before addressing the matter of the addition to the original

amendment now incorporated in the bill, I refer to the

Attorney-General’s comments in respect of minor technical

amendments, namely clause 5 of the bill to amend section 61

of the principal act and clause 6 of the bill to amend section

77 of the principal act. Of course, these arise out of the

decision of Liquorland vs Hurley, which was handed down

in the Supreme Court on 18 July 2001.

I welcome those amendments and I express my appreciation that the Supreme Court has brought this to the attention

of the parliament for immediate action. Sometimes the

scrutiny of the judiciary, when a case comes before them,

does highlight the deficiency in the drafting and it is important that this is remedied as soon as practicable. The legislation is not just for future litigants but to ensure that it is a

clear guide to the current relevant parties in their adherence

and their application.

I now wish to specifically refer to clause 7(b)(i) of the bill.

The amendment proposed by the Hon. Angus Redford

provided that in hearing or determining a complaint the

commissioner or court must take into account ‘the period of

time’. The bill adds the words, preceding the above:

..therelevanthistoryofthelicensedpremisesinrelationtoother

premises in the vicinity and, in particular...

I seek an explanation from the Attorney-General for the

addition, as he does not mention it in his second reading

explanation. If he can clarify this, we may not need to refer

to it in committee. ‘Relevant history’ is not defined in the

principal act or this bill, and this particular subclause of the

bill now proposes to relegate the period of time of a certain

activity or its change as only one—albeit that it has the status

of ‘in particular’. In relation to what other history is relevant—and I raise the question as to whether that should be

defined—I note that this ‘relevant history’ is placed in the

context only in its relationship to other premises in the

vicinity. ‘Premises’ is defined in the principal act as ‘in a

public convenience.’ I would just mention that, in relation to

section 4 of the principal act, the definition of premises

includes:

(a) land

(b) any building or structure on land

(c) a public convenience

(d) a part of premises

The principal act defines ‘public convenience’ as follows:

. . . means an aeroplane, vessel, bus, train, tram or other vehicle

used for public transport or available for hire by members of the

public,butdoesnotincludeaconveyancehiredonaself-drivebasis

if all passengers (if any) are to be transported free of charge or other

consideration.

Having read those definitions, I simply indicate that the mind

boggles somewhat at how a court is expected to take this into

account as one of the factors it must consider under the bill.

As an example, I refer to a seaside hotelier and a complainant

against activity in that hotel having to identify every premises

including any ship regularly passing by that offers live

entertainment. I raise that because that is what the definitions

say and there is no attempt to identify that in the bill. I just

seek some clarification of that.

If it is intended to elevate the significance and highlight

the importance of live music in a licensed premises being the

subject of a complaint, where other neighbouring hotels no

longer offer this entertainment, then I suggest it should do so.

That may aid the cause but, where there has been a reverse

trend in a particular area—that is, of live music in other

venues—it could work against the retention of or place

greater restriction on the subject premises. I seek some

clarification on the definition issue so that we can be quite

clear on that. I otherwise indicate my support for the bill and

look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Minister for Local

Government): I rise to support the bill and to make some

observations of a planning nature. As a result of the residential building boom in the 1990s and the rediscovery and

subsequent promotion of inner-city living and cafe lifestyles,

there has been this pressure on legitimate business activities,

especially in the hospitality industry and the mischief we seek

to remedy. A growing trend of residents moving into this

these areas—although in full knowledge of a hotel, cafe or

restaurant next-door—has increased complaints about noise

levels. This has effectively contributed to the closure of a

number of venues or at least severely curtailing their

activities. This issue has recently become more critical with

a number of the state’s leading suburban live music venues

either considering or in some cases actually stopping live

performances as a direct result of residents’ complaints. The

last live music gig was played at the Bridgewater Inn on

23 June 2001. The Bridgewater Inn is not alone. Some of

Adelaide’s best known entertainment venues are also under

significant pressure: they include the Stag, Governor

Hindmarsh, Crown and Anchor, Kensington, Wheatsheaf,

Exeter and Grace Emily.


HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Wednesday 10 July 2002

In South Australia, more than 21 000 live band performances are held in hotels each year. These hotels are an important

link to the South Australian music industry and provide a

place for musicians to graduate from garages to live gigs and

then often to a career in the music industry. To name just a

few, some of the band, singers and musicians who have been

discovered or have honed their talents in South Australia

include: Cold Chisel and Jimmy Barnes; the Angels; the

Twilights; the Masters Apprentices; Greg Champion; Glen

Shorrock; Becky Cole and the legendary late Bon Scott of

ACDC.

More recently, a young South Australian woman, Sia

Furler, left Adelaide to expand her career as a singer and song

writer, and to enjoy living in London’s West End. Indeed, her

very successful album released in the UK in July 2000 has

now been released in Australia, and I have it here with me:

it is called ‘Sia: healing is difficult’. She is described as a

‘. . . singer of voluminous talent. Her vocals are totally unique

and leave you gasping for more after just one listen. Pure

quality music; maximum respect’. Elements of this could be

regarded as racy, and for some of the older members opposite

like the member for Stuart I would issue a word of caution in

case blood pressure levels rise to malignant levels. It is a

great CD, and I would recommend that anybody who has not

listened to it should do so.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Yes, I can assure the

member for Stuart it is very different from Slim Dusty.

Support of pubs like the Governor Hindmarsh, Stag and

Austral were essential to Sia’s developing her career. She

could not have moved forward without the pub gigs, which

are so important as a lifeline for young musicians. Such is the

relationship between musicians and those venues that they

often support their rise to success. Sia continues to provide

entertainment in those venues when she comes back from

London. In London she is very big news; she is about to

become even bigger news here, and she is an Adelaide girl.

There is a lot to support about this industry, and we should

be getting behind young people who make it their lifestyle

and their job.

There is much speculation among young people that

Adelaide is a boring place and that there are not things to do

here. It is little wonder that those sorts of attitudes occur

when we do face these threats of losing our live music

industry. We do not want to lose those fresh ideas or

creativity, and we want to provide ways in which we can

support our young people. The arts are not just about theatre,

and jobs are not just about car plants. The future of South

Australia might be in those places we expected it to be.

Members have noted the bipartisan way in which this issue

is being dealt with, and I note the work of the Live Music

Group, which consisted of representatives of the state

division of the AHA, the Property Council, local government,

the Environment Protection Agency, Planning SA, SA Police

and the Liquor and Gaming Commission, all of whom made

important contributions to bringing about this legislation.

The nature of hotels means that noise will always be

associated with businesses, and residents need to be aware of

and acknowledge this when they are deciding to take up

residence in close proximity to a hotel. The Liquor Licensing

Act obviously states that noise levels cannot be offensive,

annoying, disturbing or inconvenient, but that means that,

even if a licensed premises meets its obligations under the

Environment Protection Act, it still may not have met its

obligations under the Liquor Licensing Act. If just one

resident considers a noise level to be unreasonable, even if

that is not backed by the EPA readings, under the previous

regime the decision would have been taken to curtail the

music at the venue. So, this legislation is important to remedy

that issue.

Our economy is not just about what we grow, build or

manufacture: it is centrally driven by the services we also

provide. Some 78 per cent of employment is found in the

services sector, and the entertainment industry is just one

component of that large and growing sector. The music

industry as part of that industry is the sixth largest export

industry in the nation. A substantial amount of employment

is taken up by young people in that sector, and members

would be aware that youth unemployment remains one of our

central public policy dilemmas. But this issue is not just about

jobs: it is about creating a space for people to enjoy themselves, enjoy each other’s company and listen to the talents

of the people who perform in these venues. Our government

believes that the measures contained in the bill provide a

sensible balance between the rights of residents and those

who want to listen to live music. I commend the bill to the

consideration of the house.

Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood): I will be very brief with

my comments. I agree with the comments made by the

Minister for Urban Planning and Development. We have

grappled with this issue in my community for many years.

Long before the move to urban living in the city we were

facing this issue in Norwood. We had many hotels surrounded by residents and, obviously, as the nature of hotels

changed, there was some conflict between residents and the

live music venues. We had a very unusual instance back in

the late 1980s, when the Norwood Hotel lodged an appeal

against a residential development that was happening on

Osmond Terrace. It was when the Adelaide Central School

of Art moved to Norwood, and part of the development plan

was to build five townhouses. Whilst the proprietors of the

Norwood Hotel thought that residential development on

Osmond Terrace would be eminently appropriate, they

wanted to put on the record for any people who might move

into the area in future years that the hotel had been operating

for many years and had a closing time of 4 a.m.

An honourable member: Do the Saturno brothers still

have that place?

Ms CICCARELLO: The Saturno brothers still have that

hotel, and the residential development did go ahead. The

School of Art has been working very well and the Norwood

Hotel, which is now Finn MacCool’s, is also operating

extremely well. It is very important that musicians of all ages

have opportunities to exhibit their talents and entertain people

from the community, so I think this bill is eminently sensible.

It has been far too long in coming, and it certainly would

have been very helpful in my electorate if we had had it much

sooner. I attended the rally that was held last year, and there

was enormous support from a wide cross-section of the

community, so I think this will be a very popular move.

I recently attended a youth forum in my electorate, and

one of the complaints that came from the young people (and

some were under age; some would not have been able to go

to pubs) was that there are very few places these days where

they can enjoy live music because of changes in society and

what people think is appropriate. I commend this bill and

look forward to more live music being available for all to

enjoy.


Wednesday 10 July 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite): I rise to support the

bill, as shadow minister for tourism and the arts. I seek to

make a few observations about how the bill will impact on

the tourism industry and the arts within the state, and provide

some personal perspectives on what I believe must be done

in addition to this bill. I will then conclude with a few general

remarks about the benefits of the bill and the challenges

ahead.

The essential problem here is that music and people must

coexist; that hotels that provide live music venues and

residents must coexist; and that Adelaide and regional centres

must have a life and a heart. People need to use a good deal

of commonsense. There needs to be a degree of peaceful

coexistence. In this respect, live music is not the only

example of such disputes and such dilemmas. Another

example is the issue of air traffic noise and airfields and

residents. It has been quite common in recent decades for

residents to establish homes around airfields that have been

there for a very long time and, after a period of time, having

moved into the area knowing that there was an airfield and

knowing that there would be disturbance, feel aggrieved at

the degree of air traffic noise that is going on and seek either

to limit the operations of the airport or to close down the

airport. In fact, there are some synergies with that dilemma

and this dilemma of live music. However, the live music

issue is much closer to the heart of the city of Adelaide and

is a much more complex issue in many respects.

The bill seeks to provide a mechanism for residents and

hotels providing live music to resolve their disputes amicably,

in a way which gets around the problems of first use and

which provides a fair go for both residents and those who

provide live music. Without this bill, and without an outcome,

many venues around the city of Adelaide and elsewhere

simply face closure. Should this bill not pass, the result would

be that Adelaide, as a well established centre for music over

many decades, would risk withering on the vine. But, of

course, to stop that from happening, far more needs to be

done than is provided for in this bill. In particular, if Adelaide

is to remain a vibrant 21st century city, it must continue to

cater for the arts and entertainment and not simply for

residential and retail uses. If live music and hotel uses are

lost, the role and fabric of our city will be eroded. That will

have a very detrimental impact, not only on the quality of life

for all South Australians but also on businesses that hinge on

the entertainment and tourist industry.

These amendments to the Liquor Licensing Act go some

way to providing a resolution. But, of course, new noise

guidelines need to be provided through the EPA to provide

a suitable mechanism for residents and live music venues to

resolve their differences. Of course, other actions need to be

taken to ensure that buyers of residences are made aware of

the existence of live music venues before they purchase their

home. Therefore, when they purchased a home they would

know that a venue is operating in the precinct and can expect

to have that as part of their daily life.

As I mentioned earlier, a degree of commonsense and

reasonableness needs to be evident. People cannot move into

an area that is alongside a live music venue one week and

then decide the following week that they want the venue to

be closed. That is one of the problems this bill seeks to

overcome. Of course, there will be implications for local

councils, particularly in regard to their development plans and

planning amendment reports. They will need to embrace the

spirit of this bill and implement it. There will also be

implications for building codes. Other initiatives will

probably be needed in terms of the Summary Offences Act

1953 in regard to patron behaviour to ensure that not only

behaviour inside live music venues is dealt with but also the

behaviour around live music venues. This often results in

complaints from local residents and is not within the ambit,

responsibility or the ability of a hotelier to control.

A live music fund was suggested by the former government to be applied for various purposes: first, to assist venues

to undertake improvements that meet EPA noise levels;

secondly, to assist developers in residential development in

mixed-use zones with noise attenuation measures; and,

thirdly, to enhance the development of the South Australian

live music industry generally. It is one thing to provide

legislation but it is another thing to provide the money

required to make it a reality. That is why I was alarmed last

night when I heard from industry sources that an initiative of

the former Liberal government to establish a new live music

fund was at risk by this government and is likely to be axed

in the budget tomorrow.

The investment that the former government was to make

of $200 000 (an extra sum on top of current expenditure of

$400 000) through Arts SA was to provide for contemporary

music projects, such as the doubling of funding for the

recording assistance program of about $80 000 each year.

First, this was to give more musicians the assistance they

need to kick start their careers. Secondly, a state-wide live

music touring program was to be launched, incorporating

extra support for regional areas to present local musicians and

to provide mentorships and business skill workshops. Thirdly,

a music house was to develop and conduct industry training

courses and manage Music Business Adelaide as an event.

Fourthly, the South Australian Folk Federation was to be

assisted to relaunch the annual Folk Festival in the Adelaide

Hills. Finally, the annual Frances Folk Gathering in the

South-East was to receive $10 000 to help train student

musicians in recognition of the ongoing support provided by

the Governor Hindmarsh Hotel.

I understand that that money is to be axed tomorrow

afternoon by the current government. I am very disappointed

to hear that. With this bill, the government has followed the

leadership of the previous government and sought to make

changes designed to achieve better co-existence between the

live music industry and hotels and the residents of South

Australia. It is a shame that the arts minister (the Premier) is

to slice this $200 000 off the live music fund. I will be

delighted tomorrow afternoon if I am proven wrong and the

funding remains. But I suspect from very reliable sources that

I will be disappointed, and I see the minister assisting for the

arts leaving on that note. Perhaps he would like to spring to

his place and correct me and tell me that the funding will be

preserved, but I take from his departure that it is as good as

gone. Nevertheless, I hope that the hotels and the live music

providers of South Australia are not disappointed tomorrow

afternoon.

In conclusion, and following on from my colleague the

member for Bragg, I indicate that, of course, we support this

bill. This measure will enhance tourism within the city of

Adelaide in particular, and it will be good for the arts. It will

be good for the arts community. It will be good for those

musicians and others who are involved in the provision of

live music, which is very much what Adelaide and South

Australia are all about.

In saying that, I remind the house that the needs of young

people in this state are often needs that we ignore. We go

ahead, we create legislation, we take actions that we feel are


HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Wednesday 10 July 2002

in the best interests of South Australians but, of course, as

you look around the chamber and consider the age of

members of parliament, you could be forgiven for expressing

concern that we may from time to time forget that Adelaide

needs to be good fun for young people; and live music venues

are very much a part of that good fun. So, in supporting the

bill, I urge the government to look at the other issues which

I have raised and which were flagged late last year by my

colleagues in this house and the other place, and implement

them in concert with this bill.

In concluding, I would like to bring to the house’s

attention some comments made by my colleague the Hon.

Angus Redford in another place, whose terrific work in

preparing this legislation is to be commended. He said on 25

October:

I draw members’ attention to the fact that it is my strong view

that in 100 years we will not be judged by the political events of the

last week or the last fortnight; we will not be judged by the result of

the forthcoming federal election; and we will not be judged by the

results of inflation factors, employment levels or the sorts of things

that generally occupy us on a day-to-day basis. In 100 years we will

be judged by the product of our artists, authors, musicians and poets.

We judged the late 19th century and the early 20th century by the

likes of C.J. Dennis, Banjo Paterson and Henry Lawson. In 100 years

our community will be judged by our musicians—their words and

music, their activities and their success—whether it be on an

international, national or local stage.

I think he is right, and I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Attorney-General): The

origin of this bill is a decision of the Development Assessment Unit of the Charles Sturt Council. That council decided

to grant development permission to Mr Peter Jurkovic to

build a series of townhouses on First Street at Hindmarsh

immediately behind the Governor Hindmarsh Hotel. The

Governor Hindmarsh Hotel is in my electorate, and for many

years it has been a venue for live music.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Indeed, it is a good pub and

a pub without pokies. Its licensees, Brian and Richard

Tonkin, are well known to me, although the developer of the

townhouses, Mr Jurkovic, is also well known to me as his

sister lives next-door to me. The Charles Sturt Development

Assessment Unit granted permission for the erection of, I

think, seven townhouses immediately behind the Governor

Hindmarsh Hotel and next to the railway line to Woodville;

indeed, next to the Bowden Railway Station. Now, quite why

someone would want to live with the Governor Hindmarsh

on one side, Woodville railway on another and the fishmongers, Raptis Brothers, on the eastern side, is beyond me,

but I gather people are willing to buy these townhouses.

The anxiety of Brian and Richard Tonkin was that

residents would move into these townhouses and, under the

Liquor Licensing Act, those residents would be in a strong

position to complain about the noise emanating from the Gov

and perhaps be in a position for the Liquor Licensing

Commissioner to penalise the licensees, or even to close

down the live music.

So, the Tonkins felt that their licence was under threat

from the decision of the development assessment unit of the

Charles Sturt Council. I hasten to add that, as I understand it,

the development application did not even go to the planning

committee of the council, or to the full council: it was just

decided by the development assessment unit, the same unit

that made the decision to grant planning permission to the

Rebels motorcycle gang to build their headquarters on the

corner of Chief Street and Second Street, Brompton, not so

far away. Quite rightly, the Deputy Ombudsman was

concerned about the proceedings and methods of the Charles

Sturt Council’s development assessment unit, and I am

pleased to say that that unit has been reformed.

I understood the anxiety of the licensees of the Gov, but

I was also mindful that some people had lived in the immediate vicinity of the Gov for quite a long time. It is not true to

say that it is an entirely non-residential area. Mr Len Gregory

and Mrs Gregory, who are well known to me, live at number

2, Gibson Street, right at the back of the Gov, and, in the 12

years I have been a member of parliament, they have made

no complaints about the live music.

The late Erwin Schwarz, too, used to live at the back of

the Gov, very close to the stationmaster’s building at Bowden

Railway Station, and he never made any complaints to me,

though I called at his home a couple of times. Indeed, the late

Mr Schwarz’s home was burnt down by squatters after his

death, and it was the bulldozing of his home that made way

for the townhouses to be built. So, that is my interest in the

matter as the local member of parliament.

The Tonkins mobilised other hotels that felt that they

might also be under threat from residential encroachment, and

so the Grace Emily and the Aurora Hotel and, I believe, the

Wheatsheaf Hotel at Thebarton, joined in the campaign.

Ultimately, a rally was held at Parliament House, which I was

pleased to attend, along with the now Premier and the now

member for Adelaide.

Ms Ciccarello: And me.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And the member for

Norwood, and many bands played for our entertainment on

what was a pretty cold day.

I commend the Hon. Angus Redford for the work he has

done in getting this bill together, particularly his work

chairing the working group that looked at the difficulty. Since

the working group reported and the bill came into parliament

last year, someone has moved into one of the townhouses in

First Street, Hindmarsh, and the Tonkins have contacted me

because they are anxious that that person not be able to use

the current Liquor Licensing Act to challenge live music at

the Gov. So, I am eager to expedite this bill. I am sure that

once it gets into another place, the Hon. Angus Redford and

the government will make sure it goes through swiftly.

Indeed, the bill should have passed this place on the last

sitting day last year. The opposition offered the then Liberal

government its support for expediting the bill and getting it

through before parliament rose and was prorogued before the

election and, for reasons best known to himself, the deputy

premier decided not to do that. So, it remains for us to get the

bill through parliament.

I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I

thank the member for Bragg for supporting the fourth Labor

government bill in a row, and I hope that her father is still

talking to her and that she will oppose the second reading of

one of our bills some day soon.

The member for Bragg made a close textual analysis of the

bill and I thank her for reading its provisions carefully,

including the Liquorland csae amendments that were added

to the bill. The member for Bragg, if I heard her correctly,

seemed to think that the definition of ‘premises’ in section 4

of the act was too inclusive. That definition provides:

‘premises’ includes—

(a) land;

(b) any building or structure on land;

(c) a public conveyance;


Wednesday 10 July 2002

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

(d) a part of premises;

In my view, that definition does not present any difficulties

in combination with the current amendments. If I heard her

correctly, the member for Bragg was thinking that people on

a passing ship might be able to complain about live music

emanating from a hotel. Well, I will take the member for

Bragg’s point seriously when the crew of a live sheep carrier

headed for Bahrain complains about the bass guitar being

played in the Largs Pier Hotel. I do not think it is a serious

point but I commend the honourable member for reading the

bill carefully. The member for Bragg also asks why the word

‘history’ was included in clause 7 of the bill, which provides:

In hearing and determining a complaint under this section, the

commissioner or the court, as the case may be—

(b) must take into account—

(i)

the relevant history of the licensed premises in

relation to other premises in the vicinity and, in

particular, the period of time over which the activity,

noise or behaviour complained about has been

occurring and any significant change at any relevant

time in the level or frequency at which it has occurred;

I think that part of clause 7 is of the very essence of the bill.

It is what the bill is all about. I think that all sides of the

house believe that it would be unfair if new residents were

able to move into Mr Jurkovic’s townhouses and complain

about the noise of live music coming out of a hotel that has

had live music for many years. The Gov has been well

established in the area and it should not be prejudiced by

residential encroachment. I think that most members of the

house take the view that if you move into one of the townhouses in First Street, Hindmarsh, you take the area as you

find it, and members opposite are nodding in agreement. That

clause reflects, in legislation, the belief of the house about

this matter. The word ‘history’ was used in the working group

report. I refer to page 4 of the working group report, which

states:

provide that in determining a complaint the licensing authority:

(iii)

must make an objective assessment of whether any

offence, annoyance, disturbance or inconvenience

alleged in support of the complaint is undue, having

regard to the nature of the locality in which the

licensed premises are situated, the nature of the

activity complained about, and the respective histories

of the licensed premises and the various premises in

the vicinity thereof;

This year the government has reflected in the bill what the

working group wanted. In the last version of the bill Parliamentary Counsel dropped out the reference to ‘history’ and

the Australian Hotels Association asked that it be reinserted

in the bill to make it accord with the intentions of the working

group. That is why, in answer to the question of the member

for Bragg, ‘history’ is back in the bill. ‘History’ has its

natural meaning—I do not think it needs to be defined in

section 4 of the parent act.

The member for Bragg asked how the commissioner or the

court will get to know about the history of the locality in

which the licensed premises are situated. The commissioner

or judge will not be required to make their own inquisition

into the history of the locality as it will be presented by the

parties, I would expect, in accordance with our adversarial

system of justice in South Australia, which we inherited from

Britain. The evidence of the history of the neighbourhood will

be adduced in the normal way. With those remarks, I thank

members from both sides for their contribution to the debate

and wish the bill a speedy passage both here and in the other

place. Once it has passed both houses the government will

take all reasonable steps to expedite Vice Regal assent and

proclamation.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining

stages.


No comments: