LIQUOR PURCHASE SCHEME

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:32): I move:

That this house calls on the state government to consider introducing a Northern Territory style computerised liquor purchase scheme based on the presentation of photographic identification.

In August I visited the Northern Territory and spent quite a bit of time speaking with police at the various community police stations. They have a police station in every major shopping centre. I also spoke with people who were in the business of supplying liquor. What they did in the Northern Territory—and it began on 1 July of this year, so it is relatively new—is introduce the Alcohol Reform (Prevention of Alcohol Related Crime and Substance Abuse) Bill 2011, and that is now an act which, as I said, commenced on 1 July.

The estimated cost of alcohol and substance abuse in the Northern Territory is $642 million per annum. That obviously includes health and related medical emergency costs, chronic disease, policing, court and corrective services costs and loss of productivity.

The way the system works, and I tried it out, is if you want to buy takeaway alcohol you will need to have photo ID, whether it is a licence or some other approved photo ID, it could be a passport or something like that. It is scanned at the point of sale and if you have a drink driving issue that has been before the court or you have a track record of domestic violence which has also involved police or court activity then you will not be allowed to buy takeaway alcohol.

It works very simply. If you get the green light at the bottle shop you can buy liquor; if you get the red light you cannot. There is a very significant penalty for people who breach that by supplying liquor to their mate outside the liquor store, or wherever. In fact, they can become a part of the prohibition in the sense that they will be denied access to takeaway liquor.

We know, here in South Australia, that we have similar problems. According to SAPOL, 41 per cent of offences against the person are alcohol related; in the CBD this increases to 62 per cent. SAPOL did a study and found that, in the financial year 2008-09, 29 per cent of aggravated robberies, 42 per cent of minor assaults, 22 per cent of sexual offences, 18 per cent of serious criminal trespass offences and 37 per cent of property damage offences were alcohol related. When you go to places like Hindley Street, the number of offences triples.

We can also look at other issues related to alcohol, such as people driving vehicles. More than 20 per cent of drivers and riders killed in Australia in 2007 had a blood alcohol level that exceeded the legal limit. In terms of disease, I can list the incidence of alcohol-related disease.

I do not think I need to labour the point in terms of the negative aspects of alcohol consumption where it is misused or abused. I am not against people having a drink; I enjoy a drink myself. However, I think this Northern Territory system has merit, and I have met with the Commissioner of Police and pointed out this scheme to him and he seemed to be quite interested in it. I do not know whether he has had a chance to consult with his Northern Territory colleagues, but I urge the government here to look at this scheme.

It is not targeted. Some people think it is targeted against Aboriginal people: it is not. It applies to anyone in the community and it seems to be working well up there. It is still early days. As I say, it only started on 1 July but already it seems to be having a significant impact. It is not the total answer to people abusing and misusing alcohol, but I think it is a reasonable step in terms of trying to ensure that the people who use alcohol responsibly can still purchase it and those who do not use it responsibly are restricted in their access to alcohol.

I commend this motion to the house and, in particular, urge the government here through the various ministers involved in this area to have a look at what has happened in the Northern Territory as a result of the introduction of its alcohol reform bill.

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (11:38): Unfortunately for the member for Fisher, the government does not support his motion, and I will explain why. The Northern Territory government recently launched the Enough Is Enough campaign to coincide with alcohol reforms which target problem drinkers to turn them off tap and mandate treatment for the first time in the territory's history. The reforms are supported by a banned drinker register, which was rolled out from 1 July 2011 across the territory to help reinforce the problem drinker bans.

The Banned Drinker Register will enable takeaway alcohol outlets at the point of sale to identify banned drinkers and enforce the bans. People who purchase takeaway alcohol across the territory need to provide government-issued photo ID cards which will be scanned at the point of sale against the Banned Drinker Register. Those who are not on the register will be able to buy their alcohol as usual, and no information about the person or their purchases will be recorded. This has resulted in the Northern Territory government having to ensure that every resident is the holder of some form of government-issued ID.

Banned drinker register ID scanners will be installed in takeaway liquor outlets across the territory as part of the campaign. The territory government is funding $3.2 million to install the banned drinks register scanners in the takeaway outlets and $1.5 million for the police to implement the problem drinker bans.

The Northern Territory police will issue the notices banning alcohol and treatment (BAT) notices. The Northern Territory government has committed $67 million over five years to implement the initiatives under the alcohol reforms, including $34.2 million on treatment for problem drinkers. Over 2011-12, the territory government is providing $10.9 million, including $5.2 million to enhance existing alcohol treatment options and establish new services to meet the demands of people with significant alcohol problems.

I will explain the South Australian position. In recent years amendments to the Liquor Licensing Act strengthened the barring provisions to enable police to bar persons from a licensed premises or multiple licensed premises for specific periods on grounds such as welfare or offensive behaviour. Police may bar individuals indefinitely, based on welfare groups, if they believe the wellbeing of the person or the person's family is seriously at risk.

Problems associated with alcohol abuse, and in particular the incidence of grog running in the Yalata and the Oak Valley Aboriginal communities, led to the development of licence conditions imposed by consent on West Coast licensees. These conditions restrict the sale of liquor for carry-off from licensed premises to allow alcohol (beer) to any person that the licensee has reasonable grounds to suspect resides at these communities.

The licence conditions also require that appropriate identification be provided prior to any sale of carry-off liquor in certain circumstances, for example, to any person who may be travelling to or resides in the APY lands. The South Australian government has also undertaken a review of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 and the code of practice aimed at addressing alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.

Amendments currently before parliament include stringent standards for the sale of alcohol for consumption on licensed premises between 4am and 7pm. One of the standards is the mandatory presence of a drink marshal, whose sole responsibility is to promote responsible drinking on the premises. The drink marshal will patrol the premises and alert the bar staff to the presence of intoxicated persons.

The proposed code of practice includes a variety of measures aimed at minimising the harmful and hazardous effects of alcohol consumption. One of the provisions in the code mandates that the licensee and all staff members involved in the service or supply of liquor on the licensed premises complete an accredited training course in the responsible service of alcohol. This will enable all employees to identify and manage problem drinkers.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Venning.