I have not been able to make sense of these oversights. WTF.
It does seem really baffling.
The clubs that get mentioned all share a common source of legal representation that DNA does not share. JWZ can correct me if he sees this and knows otherwise.
Weren't the other guests on the radio show the *spokespeople* for the venues in question? Someone previously mentioned a PR person might be in order.
It might be worth the money to pay someone to spend all day getting the word out about DNA and the struggles with ABC.
This article talks about drafting new rules. But a little research suggests that the ABC already has the power to issue a license perfect for a club like the DNA Lounge, (under 21s allowed, no need to sell food, etc.) it simply chooses not to. So the "new rules" needed are a change in policy at the ABC, that's your main hope. Somehow (maybe by people loudly demanding it from their elected officials) the ABC's stance on clubs has to change, or you are screwed. The lawyers are necessary to keep you open meanwhile, but a long term future requires political change. Ugh.
The current situation -- of live venues technically being "restaurants" -- has been the status quo for literally sixty years, and ABC has only started behaving as if it is a problem recently. So yes, though the licensing situation is a little weird and nonsensical, it had been working fine for more than half a century.
On a plus note, your music brought a huge grin to my face.