LIQUOR LICENSING (SUPPLY TO MINORS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (10:39): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Liquor Licensing Act 1997. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (10:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am introducing this bill because I believe that a child's parents and nobody else should be entitled to decide the circumstances in which a minor is introduced to alcoholic beverages. In South Australia, it is illegal to sell alcohol to a minor and it is illegal to allow a minor to consume alcohol in a public place or a licensed premise. There is, however, no law preventing an adult from lawfully obtaining alcohol and giving it to a minor, whether they are the child's parent or not, so long as they do so in a private residence. I do not believe that this is appropriate.

Simply put, this bill seeks to remedy this, to make it illegal to supply alcohol to a minor unless they are your child, or indeed your spouse, or unless you have explicitly been given permission to do so by a parent. In the precise language of the bill, a person who supplies liquor to a minor is guilty of an offence unless the liquor is supplied to the minor by an adult guardian or spouse of the minor or by an adult who is authorised to do so by an adult guardian or spouse of the minor.

My personal inclination is always against government telling people what to do or how to live their lives. What consenting adults choose to do, to consume or how they do it, will rarely trouble me, so long as they do so in a way that does not impinge on anyone else's freedoms—that is a pretty fundamental tenet of liberalism. But for many good reasons we have different rules for minors.

The family is in a way the first and best tier of government, but families do not always get it right and, until our young people turn 18, we as a society have acknowledged a responsibility to ensure that they are given every chance to succeed when they become an adult. We provide an education system, we impose duties of care upon a child's adult guardians, we provide government benefits and tax relief to families to assist in the nurture and development of young minds. We have all sorts of measures in place to protect their health.

We also prevent children from being able to undertake certain risk-taking behaviours for which their bodies and minds are not ready. They are not allowed to drive, except under certain limited conditions. They are not allowed to smoke or access pornography. In recent weeks, we have moved to prevent children from getting their ears pierced without parental consent, and we understand from the Deputy Premier that they will also be prevented from accessing violent video games. I would argue that this is an equally pressing matter.

While allowing that a parent may be the best placed to teach their child to have a responsible attitude towards alcohol, we have long acknowledged that it is not a great idea for children to drink. It is illegal for minors to be served alcohol in bars and police will send kids home if they are found drinking in a public park. Yet, according to the most recent data in 2008 from the 'Australian secondary school survey into students' use of tobacco, alcohol and over-the-counter and illicit substances'—I dread to think what the acronym is of that—60 per cent of our 12 to 17 year olds have had a drink in the last year. One in nine 13-year-old children and one in five 14-year-old children have had a drink in the last week. That is three children in the average year 7 class and six children in the average year 8 class who were drinking last week and who are going to be drinking again next week.

As children get older, as you might expect, the figures for alcohol consumption increase also. By the time the average Australian teenager turns 15 there is a fifty-fifty chance that, while some of us have been doing Dry July, they have not. This is far too young for children to be consuming alcohol at all, let alone on a regular basis. We have learned a great deal even in the last 10 to 15 years from modern brain mapping technology and have a much better understanding of adolescent brain development and cognitive function than previously. What we now know is that every downside about the effect of alcohol on the human body, and the brain in particular, is multiplied when that alcohol is consumed by teenagers, to the point that any positive social and physiological effects of sensible alcohol consumption that do or may exist for adults are completely overwhelmed.

There are libraries of material about this, but I particularly commend to all members an accessible document—which I can give you a copy if you like—entitled 'Alcohol and the teenage brain' by Professor Ian Hickie of the Brain and Mind Research Institute at the University of Sydney, which provides a useful summary of much of the recent scientific data and information. I think it is important that the parliament have a look at the science and consider it in its deliberations on this matter. So, for the benefit of members, I will briefly quote some of Professor Hickie's conclusions. He writes:

If one weighs up the available evidence concerning direct risks to brain development, short and long-term effects on cognitive and emotional development and risks of associated injury due to poor judgement and lack of inhibition, on balance, two conclusions now appear to be justified:

1. Alcohol should not be consumed by teenagers under the age of 18 years; and

2. Alcohol use is best postponed for as long as possible in the late teenage and early adult years.

The key emerging scientific issues that support this view are:

the frontal lobes of the brain underpin those major adult functions related to complex thought and decision, and inhibition of more child-like or impulsive behaviours. These parts of the brain undergo their final critical phase of development throughout adolescence and the early adult period;

Alcohol, even in small doses is associated with a reduction in activity of the normal inhibitory brain processes. Given that such processes are less developed in teenagers and young adults, alcohol use is likely to be associated with greater levels of risk-taking behaviour than that seen in adults;

Alcohol normally results in sedative effects as the level of consumption rises. It appears that teenagers and young adults are less sensitive to these sedating effects and are therefore likely to continue with risk-taking behaviours. As they also experience loss of control of fine motor skills, the chances of sustaining serious injuries (including head injuries) are increased;

Exposure to significant levels of alcohol during the early and mid-adolescent period appears to be associated with increased rates of alcohol-related problems as an adult, as well as a higher rate of common mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression;

Young people with first lifetime episodes of anxiety, depression or psychotic disorders, who also consume significant amounts of alcohol, are at an increased risks of self harm, attempted suicide, accidental injury, as well as persistence or recurrence of their primary mental health problem.

Given the clear evidence that the effects of alcohol on minors is significantly worse than on adults and given the alarming numbers of minors drinking regularly, I cannot fathom why the government is so fixated on telling consenting adults what to do in supervised licensed premises, rather than focusing on our teenage drinking culture.

I have spoken to many parents since my election who feel powerless to stop their school-aged children from drinking. Not only does current legislation permit under-age drinking on private property, the pervasive culture among teens encourages regular drinking and often to excess. Most parents are reluctant to let their children drink alcohol, and certainly not to excess, but they also do not want their children to be ostracised by their peers. They are currently faced with an impossible choice when the invitations to parties come in, just as they are faced with difficult choices when their kids pressure them to host such gatherings because everyone else in their group has had a turn.

How empowering would it be for a parent in this circumstance to be able to say to their child, 'You can have your friends over, but I won't give them alcohol: it's against the law'. Under our present arrangements a parent in this situation who has questions about how to prevent their child's party from becoming a booze-fuelled nightmare, might turn to the government's current publication called Teenage parties. A parent's guide. Under 'Party tips and your legal responsibilities outlined' party hosts are encouraged to supply alcohol, rather than letting guests bring their own because 'that way you can control the amount and type available. Your son's friends, who are under 18, may consume alcohol in your home as it is a private premises.'

Poor grammar aside, the many parents whom I have spoken to in recent months as I have been preparing this bill have been overwhelmingly either preferring their child to abstain from drinking or at least be in control themselves of what their child consumes. A common story is that the parent drops off their child at a party, with perhaps two bottles or cans of the drink of their choice so that they can fit in without going overboard, and their child is under instruction not to drink anything supplied by anyone else. The government's party guide seems to disapprove, telling hosts that:

Allowing teenage guests to bring their own alcohol to your party means that you may have less control over what they do with it.

It goes on to suggest that because it is illegal to charge entry to a teen party where alcohol is provided, or to sell alcohol to teens, a way of getting around this can be through a pooled money arrangement, where all the kids put in the money, which the host can then take to the bottle shop and purchase the alcohol with and then bring it back to the party. That is great advice from the government.

I note that the minister claimed on the radio this morning—and I quote from the ABC's website, 'It's illegal for people to buy alcohol for minors now.' Now either he or the department knows what the law is, but I guess that so long as at least one of them does, that is something. Teen drinking is not an easy culture to change, but that does not mean it is not worth trying. It is just not good enough for us to throw up our hands and add to the problem.

There is a wealth of reasons, short and long term, why we should discourage children from drinking. Some of the obvious harms and dangers that we all know about include drink driving, fighting, unplanned, unsafe and often non-consensual sexual experiences, self-harm, potential overdose and other risky behaviours resulting in accident and injury.

Too often we see the tragic results of serious injuries from drunken fights at school parties ending in hospitalisation, just as we see too many tragic suicides of people whose long-term depressive conditions may be exacerbated by alcohol abuse. And we know that the earlier children are exposed to alcohol and start drinking regularly the more likely they are to be susceptible to alcohol abuse later in life with all of the associated problems that come with that.

We need to increase our efforts in educating parents and teens about the consequences of alcohol use on the growing brain, and there needs to be a serious community debate about the subject. This is very important, and I hope that the introduction of this bill will help to trigger that. In fact, at least four experts I note have been given air time on Adelaide radio just this morning, providing the sort of information that is very useful for parents to know about.

I think that is an excellent outcome before the introduction of this bill had even happened, and I hope that that public discussion will continue. I also note that this morning the Australian Drug Foundation (ADF) declared that this should be 'a no-brainer'. The ADF's Geoff Munro is quoted in The Advertiser , saying:

Without this legislation, any person can give any child any amount of alcohol without that child's parents knowing or approving.

And that is the very concern that was first raised with me by several constituents who were fed up with the easy access to alcohol at parties associated with events at their children's school. In the five months since then I have been investigating and researching this issue, consulting with parents and school groups within my electorate and experts and representative groups more broadly and two particular themes have come through very strongly.

First, the science says that alcohol is a disaster for the teenage brain. Secondly, parents want to be the ones who decide what sort of exposure their children should have to alcohol. I accept and strongly agree with both those principles, and that is what this bill seeks to address. However, I believe in consulting as broadly as possible before making a change such as this, and that is why today is probably a good day to introduce the bill. The winter break will provide plenty of opportunities for all members to consult within their electorates, and members of the public will have plenty of time to let us know what they think about this sort of measure.

If there are genuine improvements that can be made to the bill then I am very happy to talk about that as well. We know that these sorts of measures can be introduced without causing inconvenience to people who are doing the right thing, as is evidenced by the generally positive response to similar legislation in New South Wales in 2007 and Queensland and Tasmania in 2008. Indeed, the Victorian parliament passed a bill similar to this in May this year.

Colleagues I have spoken to in those states have expressed similar sentiments to the health experts. Nobody is saying that it is a cure-all, but it is certainly a useful law and its impact is positive. I note that in yesterday's Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's national household survey of drug and alcohol there has been a statistically significant drop in the level of teen drinking in the three years since these laws were passed on the east coast.

Many other measures have also been undertaken in that time, and I particularly note those excellent commercials that DrinkWise has produced which demonstrate the father telling his child to go and get him a beer and then the child walking back and the TV changing that child into the father telling his child to get a beer, and that is the way that our culture perpetuates our alcohol-friendly culture.

All those things and other government solutions are helping, but I do not doubt that these laws are part of the overall solution. The Queensland and Tasmanian legislation is stricter than what I am proposing in that it does not allow for parents to provide consent for other adults—even family members—to supply alcohol. In following the New South Wales and Victorian model of allowing consent to be given, I do so on the basis that my first principle is to put control back in the hands of parents.

The bill in front of the house has been informed by the experience of those jurisdictions. In Queensland, for example, where the maximum penalty is theoretically an $8,000 fine, of the 25 charges that have been concluded over three years only one actually resulted in a fine of greater than $1,000, and in that case the offender was also found guilty of supplying dangerous drugs.

By contrast, 13 charges drew fines of less than $500, many with no conviction recorded, along with several good behaviour bonds and community service orders. This bill has a lower maximum penalty than that of $5,000. Its goal is not to be punitive: rather, it gives police an extra tool to break up unruly parties involving under-age drinking without anyone needing to be taken to court at all, and it has sent a message to us all that it is inappropriate to serve alcohol to children and teenagers.

I look forward to hearing many points of view in the months ahead, and I hope that all my colleagues on both sides of the house will consider the matter very seriously.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.