LIQUOR LICENSING (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2013.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:02): I confirm that I will be the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition for the Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. This is a really interesting area for me. I am a bit of a process-driven person, so I appreciate the detail included in this matter. I think I said in the very first discussion we had in our party room that I respect the fact that, to some degree, it depends upon the age profile of the individual as to what their position might be when it comes to entertainment: what it has to be, when it is, where it is and all those sorts of things. It is fair to say, though, that the parliament assumes a very responsible role in ensuring that it puts in place the processes to allow licensing to occur, and it should never allow that authority to be lost.

I indeed recognise that, with the code of practice for late-night trading, there are, of course, roles for the commissioner—I do not deny that—but there is clearly a role for the parliament to take on, too. As part of my research on this issue I looked at a website where the words are not overly complimentary; there are liquor licensing laws and then there are a few letters after that. It has had about 5,600 hits and I think there is a lot of frustration about some of the intentions of the late-night trading code; however, there has been a lot of contact made at various levels on this matter.

It is important that we, on behalf of the community, recognise the fact that there is an enormous amount of effort being made for the safety of visitors and customers to these facilities, and there is no doubt about that. That is where operators themselves police. The regulators and the customers want to make sure that people have an opportunity to have a great day or night, early morning or total evening, but in safety. It is important that legislation is reviewed on a regular basis and that actions are taken where it is deemed appropriate.

I think it is fair to reflect upon the fact that there have been some terrible instances in recent times, not just in Adelaide or in South Australia but across Australia, where people have been attacked for no reason at all, and in some cases the result of that has been the death of that person. In other cases there are long-term injury issues that they and their families have had to deal with. These are issues that are impacting upon society as a whole, so I do respect the need for this debate to occur.

I am looking forward to the discussion that the Attorney and I will have, other contributions that will be made, and consideration that might be given to an amendment that is going to be proposed in relation to the 3am. The Attorney is shaking his head at me, but we will have a discussion about that. I will also have some questions and seek clarification on some other points, but I can say that in the absolute majority of cases there is agreement with what is proposed. However, there are some salient points that the Liberal Party does have some concerns with, one of which is the 3am, but we will talk about that in greater detail.

I note that this bill was introduced by the Attorney-General on 5 June 2013 and it is designed to amend the Liquor Licensing Act 1997. The bill has two purposes: to respond to excessive alcohol consumption, offending and public disorder; and to make amendments to streamline administrative processes and reduce red tape on industry and government. The Attorney in his second reading explanation stated that the relationship between excessive alcohol consumption, offending and public disorder is well established and notes the detrimental effects it has on the community as a whole, including the associated costs on the public purse through the provision of resources, such as police and emergency services.

The key purpose of the bill is to respond to excessive alcohol consumption, offending and public disorder by introducing a number of legislative measures which place a greater responsibility upon licensees to prevent excessive alcohol consumption occurring in their premises and better equipping the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, his staff and police to address problem drinking and alcohol-related violence in South Australia.

The bill intends the commissioner, including his staff and the police, to have increased power to take action against licensees for inappropriate mismanagement in relation to their licensed premises, including providing the commissioner with the power to impose a condition on a licence immediately (including a condition varying the trading hours) or vary or suspend a condition of a licence. Currently, the commissioner is able to place a condition on a licence. However, the condition is not effective until judicial processes have been completed. With an appeal lodged, the challenge is the often lengthy period of time that lapses before conditions imposed by the commissioner are enforced on a licensee or a licence.

In the briefing opportunity provided to me by the Attorney's staff and Mr Green, I raised a question on this point and it was reported to me that there have been instances of up to three years, I believe, where an attempt was made and an appeal process was undertaken before some form of resolution was reached, so I can see some sense in that. It does not remove appeal right opportunities, but those provisions will be enforced immediately, as I understand it, if the amendments that are proposed by the Attorney are successful.

As I confirmed, the Attorney-General's office provided me with an example where, at the time of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner (Mr Paul White) being appointed to his role, which I believe was just over three years ago, a number of licensees had conditions placed on their licence. However, three years later, these conditions have not yet been imposed due to ongoing court proceedings. It is important to note the legislation will still provide licensees with the right to appeal the decision of the commissioner as per the current appeal and review process. However, the condition imposed by the commissioner will apply immediately and the appeal and review process will follow as part of that.

I note also that the penalty for persons who have behaved in a disorderly or offensive manner in or in the vicinity of licensed premises will be increased from $160 to $500. I totally and absolutely agree with that. Indeed, it is my intention to ask questions during the committee stage as to whether other figures were considered as part of that review and, if so, what they might have been. The commissioner advises that the current fee of $160 does not properly reflect the serious consequences that can and do result from a person who is affected by alcohol behaving in a disorderly or offensive manner. Again, I confirm that this increase in the penalty is very strongly supported by the Liberal Party.

In relation to the late night code of practice, even though it is not specifically part of the bill, the discussion that is occurring in the public forum is linked to this also, so it is my intention to talk about that during the debate on this bill. To support the state government's objective to ensure that the sale and supply of liquor occurs in a manner that minimises the risk of intoxication and associated violence and antisocial behaviour, the bill provides for issues related to the late night code of practice, which has been out for several months and is intended to come into force in October.

In December 2012, the minister released for public consultation a draft late night code of practice. Following feedback and criticism of the draft code, including positive feedback and concerns and issues being raised, the state government acknowledged the importance of undertaking consultation with industry and interested parties, including health agencies and the South Australian police force. I have been advised that consultation with industry and stakeholders has occurred over the past six months. I have been advised that the late night code of practice is a compromise to the proposal of 2009 to give the commissioner and police the power to shut down licensed venues. Proposed legislation to close all licensed venues between the hours of 4am and 7am was not supported by the opposition in the other place.

Measures under the code of practice within the bill include: venues will not be able to accept new patrons after 3am (this does not mean that the venues will be closed but means that no bar hopping will occur); the state government/commissioner will have the power to regulate the provision of alcohol between midnight and 7am; the use of metal detectors, high-definition CCTV, drink marshals, as well as an early morning ban on glassware, happy hours, shooters and doubles, will be implemented; clarification of the definition of 'intoxicated' (includes behaviour as a result of illicit drugs) will assist in prosecuting offences—that is, selling liquor to intoxicated persons is a breach under section 108 of the act. The minister might like to correct me if I am wrong, but it is interesting to note that, in 2012, only six people were charged with serving alcohol to intoxicated persons. However, I do believe that the figures were provided by the South Australian police force. I confirm the fact that the code is intended to come into force on 1 October 2013.

I also want to talk briefly about red tape measures. Measures that are intended to streamline administrative processes and reduce the regulatory burden on industry and regulators include the following. Amendments providing for industry-wide approval as an approved person. The current requirement that a person must be approved for each premises at which they work is unnecessary as they are subject to the same tests in respect of each application. The changes will remove unnecessary regulation and cost to licensees.

Again, I completely agree with this measure. Indeed, a former staff member of mine who previously operated a hotel spoke to me about this some time ago and about the frustration that operators have where they want to employ staff but it is necessary to go through the current process for each staff member who might work in multiple facilities. For those who are appropriately recognised as a staff member, this is a significant improvement on the current provisions.

Another good move relates to the display of licences. The act requires a licensee to keep a copy of the licence and to display all conditions of the licence at or near the front entrance to the premises at all times. The expiation fee will still apply, but it is intended to reduce the fee from $1,200 to $160, which is a good regulatory move.

In relation to minors, amendments are proposed to reduce the confusion for licensees and inspectors regarding the areas of licensed premises that are prohibited to minors by improved display of information on minimum age of access at the entrance of the premises. It should be known by people that I think the improvement here is a good one. We live in a mature society; there should be an understanding by people that minors are not permitted to go into certain areas of licensed premises. I understand that there might be some degree of confusion in facilities that have open and more restricted areas of access, so it is important that that occurs.

In relation to the definition of entertainments, currently, the act prohibits a licensee, other than one who holds an entertainment venue licence, from using any part of the premises for entertainment without a licensing authority issuing an entertainment consent. The bill amends the definition of 'entertainment' so that it no longer includes a visual display by means of a television of any size. If you go into most hotels you will see a variety of TVs, quite large in size; some would be deemed to provide entertainment in themselves, so I think that is a good move also. Approval to hold a club licence: the change will permit the holder of a club licence to also be a company, limited by guarantee, being a company established for non-profit purposes. An example of this is the South Australian Jockey Club.

Dry areas: there is a significant improvement here, I believe. To streamline the process through which dry areas are proclaimed the bill amends the act to remove the requirement that a dry area prohibition be imposed by regulation. It is proposed that applications will be made by council to the commissioner which will then be assessed by council—that means local government authorities across the state. In the case of long-term dry areas, they will be forwarded to the minister for approval while short-term dry areas will be approved by the commissioner. All of us in this room probably would have been approached by councils in an area looking for support for that so I think that is an appropriate measure we have taken.

I recognise that in a briefing by Mr Greene on 6 June, only very shortly after the bill was issued by the Attorney, he told me that the office had undertaken extensive consultation on the bill with industry, including the Australian Hotels Association of South Australia. I sought feedback from the AHA and contacted Mr Ian Horne who certainly reinforced to me that essentially they are satisfied with the bill. However, they do have a concern—and these are his words to me—with the 3am lockout of the state and it is that issue, I suppose, that the opposition has taken up not just on behalf of the AHA but in other areas as well. Mr Horne further conveyed to me that there is not a problem with enforcement and that police officers work well with hotel owners to enforce existing laws. Last year he told ABC Radio that early closing hours were not the solution to alcohol-fuelled violence.

I referred at the start of my contribution to a Facebook page 'The New Liquor Licensing Laws Suck' which I had a look at this morning and I think it had 5,559 hits or something on it. It has been in existence for probably about six months now and the page is dominated by the opinion of young people who are questioning the need for changes, as is evident by the name of the Facebook page. I encourage other members to have a look at it.

I respect that these are young people who want to go out and have a good time. I hope that they are not young people who have been impacted by an inappropriate action which has disillusioned them about it all. They have probably seen some things that are not right but the older sections of society have to consider the impact of it so it is appropriate that we are talking about it.

I also noted that on 11 June this year the InDaily (the electronic newspaper) published an article regarding the state government's late night trading code. Within the article it referred to Deakin University Associate Professor Peter Miller who criticised the state government's late night trading policy, calling the code 'the type of policy you have when you don't have a policy'. He further commented that:

We have a mountain of evidence that tells us that if you want to actually reduce violence you need to restrict trading hours, and lockouts don't actually do that.

He then said:

Everything's happening by 3 am already, it's too late.

InDaily reports that the police commissioner, Mr Gary Burns, endorsed the late night code and said it would also reduce alcohol-related violence. I reflect that, indeed, in comments that I have had from police officers there is support for the code to be put in.

To support the policy the Attorney proposes to implement through this bill the code—and he uses the following statistics to help support it. There are some questions I want to ask on one area; I do not question it but I want some further clarification. The Attorney noted in his second reading contribution that there are approximately 12,500 hospital admissions and 600 deaths attributed to alcohol in South Australia per year.

I know we live in a society where alcohol is a legally allowable thing for people to consume. I would like some clarification, though, that of those 12,500 admissions how many were related to areas that are linked in with this bill in some way with the code provisions, probably with the late night trading code. There are some future references. I think SAPOL data indicates that in 2008-09 in the Adelaide CBD 58 per cent of victim-reported crime was related to alcohol but for 12,500 admissions to be related to alcohol is a significant figure.

I would like to know how many of those related not to the consumption on a personal basis, as that might be long-term health issues that have been reported there, but to entertainment precincts. Indeed, of the 600 deaths per year in South Australia, they cannot be entertainment precinct issues; they must be related to the long-term consumption of alcohol. So, I would just like some clarification on that.

I am aware that Consumer and Business Services has written to all licensees in South Australia to inform them of the introduction of the code, which is intended to come in from 1 October. I am also advised that there are currently 40 venues in South Australia that do trade between 3am and 7am—if the minister can correct me if I am wrong, I would appreciate that—and that every other venue is actually closed or should be closed.

Within the 2013-14 budget, I note that the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner carried out 25 taskforce operations (inspections of licensed premises) in 2012-13 financial year, and it is anticipated that there will be 30 in the 2013-14 financial year. Taskforce operation inspections occur in addition to other types of inspections, to monitor the behaviour of licensees and traders to ensure that complaints against the responsible service of alcohol are actually administered.

I want to again enforce that I understand that it is appropriate that we discuss this, because it is an absolute key issue. Within the CBD and other areas of South Australia where there are issues occurring and action has been taken—I am aware that Coober Pedy is one, and some work might have also occurred in Ceduna; I am not sure whether there might have even been some areas of Port Lincoln.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Whyalla.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, Whyalla. So, it has been undertaken across the state in various areas. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition sent me a tweet late yesterday which referred to a media report of a news story which stated alcohol-fuelled violence is harming up to 70 people a week across Australia. When you hear that, and then you think of that times by 52, you do get very worried about it; so, I understand that is why we are talking about this, and that there are measures being taken across the nation.

New South Wales has been quite strong in some areas. They have facilities—one is mandatory, and two are non-mandatory—to allow people to sober up a bit; that is what they are doing there. I have read reports of what is occurring there, and I see that there is an opportunity for South Australia to move forward too. I am also aware, as I understand it, that the Social Development Committee of the parliament is undertaking a report on this matter, or at least research is being done on the situation in New South Wales and is going to form part of the report that they complete, which is going to be presented to the parliament.

I have also spoken to people from across the industry, and I have enjoyed my discussions with them, because it has given me a bit more background. I just wanted to highlight, as part of my contribution, some of the issues that have been put to me by them. Aspects of the bill which improve the legislative compliance and efficiency are fully supported—there is no doubt about that. At least one operator has the majority of the code provisions in place voluntarily, but I believe that in his situation it is a 4am start, not 3am; I think that might be HQ.

Considerable anxiety exists about the late-night code proposal and the desire of the minister and government to give powers to the commissioner to make rules that should be the right of the parliament or the courts, but not an appointed officer. That has been raised with me by several people. Again, I go back to what I said at the very start about the role of the parliament versus the role of an individual and the authorities that can go there too.

The use of the provisions to be included in section 43 for conditions attached to a licence instead of taking action as currently allowed under section 120—the concern is that the introduction of licence conditions immediately, even with appeal rights, could impact on the financial viability of the business. In this case, I go back to the briefing information provided to me. I understand there are quite often lengthy delays in between a decision being made and it eventually being enacted—current circumstances—and that has been turned around with this bill.

Another concern is the implementation cost of the code requirements (as an example, CCTV). Is it possible, if the minister has some information on that, or if the department or the commissioner have done research on that, just to give an estimate of what the cost might be to industry to do that? There are also privacy issues related to CCTV in private areas. Never having been involved in these private areas, I have been told by others about some of the services that might be provided in these private areas, and I am wondering how extensive the CCTV network extends to those areas. Or, is it limited to open space where there are 200 patrons or more? I am wondering whether the minister could provide some definitive answers about how extensive it is intended for the CCTV network to be placed within the facility.

Licence enforcement not being used enough previously has been an issue put to me by a few, where they respect the fact that the laws exist to provide for that to be done. They do know about the excellent work being done by police, of course. We would hope for more police to be in that area, but they just enforce the fact of the relatively low number of convictions when laws have previously existed to allow that.

They have raised the question of public safety outside of the venues. I note that part of the code is the regulation efforts to actually maintain those areas where people are waiting to get into a club and the public information that has to be provided about public transport from 9pm, so there are efforts being made there. There was a question raised with me by a few people about why the code provisions do not apply to the Casino. I understand that is a very significant operation looking to invest in the state. No doubt, all of us want to see that investment to occur, so I just put that on the record.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Not my intention, minister. They enforced with me the recent New South Wales initiatives, such as sobering up centres, to reduce alcohol-related violence. As I have reflected upon before, there is one established in the more central location, where it is mandatory as long as the police officer believes that there are issues related to the need to put that person in there. There are two non-mandatory centres that New South Wales has also established, where the person has to agree to go in. It allows them to go in and, in safety, sober up. That is a positive step forward.

There is absolutely no doubt, for me, that offenders have to actually be held responsible for it, and that is where a lot of it comes to. We all get so frustrated when we have seen examples of the inability of a system to identify who an offender has been or the inability of people who might have been witnesses to an offence to identify who it is. In some cases, I feel that there is a lack of witnesses coming forward because of the fear of repercussions.

I know, in my own case, on one weekend that I was in Adelaide, my son was with a group of friends in the CBD and rang me at about 3 o'clock to come and get him, because he and his group of friends had been involved in an altercation with some people, who were actually on a bus. One of his friends was knocked unconscious and taken to hospital. My son was hit also and had some issues related to that, so it is important that we try to educate as much as we can to make the situation a lot safer for everybody.

I also want to put on the record, I suppose for the benefit of the public reviewers at a later date, that Mr Green also provided me with a copy of the details from when the draft code was first released last year compared to what the code that will come into force on 1 October is. Venues were initially intended for 2am (now it is from 3am) and to not serve discounted or free alcohol from 12am. I do note that that has been removed due to legislative restriction, which is addressed in the bill.

To not supply more than four drinks at a time was in the draft, and that has been removed in this code. The restricted use of glassware was from 12am in the draft, and now in the code it is 4am. 'Ensure that food is available'—that was in the draft, and that has been removed. Nothing to promote the rapid consumption of alcohol from 2am—that has been changed in the code just gone out to 4am.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: We had to because of the legislation.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, the minister confirms they had to because of the legislation. In the draft, not serving drinks with more than 30ml of spirits from 2am has been changed to 45ml of spirits from 4am. Closing footpath service areas and outdoor areas accessible to the public from 2am is identical, and prohibiting re-entries and new entries from 3am, again, is in the code.

The display of information about taxis and public transport at all times has only fractionally been changed to make it from 9pm onwards. That would be for venues with more than 200, and that is also identical. High definition CCTV at all entrances and exits at all times for all venues in the CBD is also identical. The use of metal detectors to screen customers upon entry is continuing. To have designated drink marshals has been changed slightly to only apply to facilities with 200 patrons or more. To have an on-duty staff member with first aid training has been continued, but only for facilities with 200 patrons or more.

The changes as part of this bill are to expand the objects of the act to include that the sale and supply of liquor occurs in a manner that minimises the risk of intoxication and associated violence and antisocial behaviour; to allow the commissioner for liquor to impose a condition on a licence immediately; and to better define intoxication, which we might talk about later on when we get down to the bill itself.

I do have a general question which extends a bit to a question that I posed to the minister in estimates where I talked about inspections that are intended to take place and, indeed, if there were going to be more resources put into it and, if so, was it at a cost? The minister, in his answer to me in estimates, noted that additional resources had been provided in previous years and that there were people out in the field and it was not intended to put in more resources from this. The minister is nodding his head in agreement, but if I can please get on the public record confirmation that if there are additional resources, how many, and if so, at what cost?

The Hon. J.R. Rau: We can deal with this in committee, if you like.

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is all right. There are some things I want to take up in committee. I know there was also a report to the Legislative Review Committee which, as I understand it, was put into parliament to lay on the table from 4 July. I take it that that means that this is considered to be a regulation which lays on the table for 14 sitting days and a disallowance opportunity exists. I am not saying I am going to do that, I just want to ensure that if the commissioner's Late Night Trading Code of Practice is laid on the table that it is considered to be the regulation and those provisions still apply.

We will talk about the amendment that I am also suggesting as part of the committee work. I have talked to a lot of people about this and some of the feedback that has come through to me I think is worthy of putting onto the record. If we want a vibrant city, we have to have a safe city. That is very true and that is why you are doing things. A safe city is not created by keeping people at home and inside after dark, so we create a forum and the Adelaide Oval investment and the footbridge is all an example of that, of trying to get more people into the CBD.

The person I spoke to noted that, from their perspective, international evidence strongly supports that the more people out and about, the safer an environment will be. I have to believe that too. If there are more people around there is more chance of safety in numbers.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: Unless they are full to the brim with alcohol.

Mr GRIFFITHS: True. This person went on to say to me that there has been no evidence presented to support the intention that the few premises which have 24-hour licences are the source of our problems. I do know that there was some action taken in early January against 13 facilities, I believe, which has been on hold for some time. It would be interesting to know if the minister has any additional comments on that and about how that links in.

This person proposes that rather than punishing the venues, a range of different measures can be introduced or better enforced which will make our entertainment precinct safer. They gave the example of the car parking issues that exist in Hindley Street—has there ever been any thought to removing some of those, even if they are on the peak nights of Friday and Saturdays and in the early mornings to make them taxi rank stands so there are more opportunities for people to get in and out quickly?

The standards of our taxi services need to be improved so that young females—and this was a lady who spoke to me—can feel safe travelling alone in a cab. That is a wider-ranging issue and I have spoken to the Taxi Council about this too. There is no doubt that for the 1,100 or 1,200 taxis that are on the road, you are completely safe in 99.99 per cent of those. But there are some concerns there.

One of the problems confronting police is the fact that, if they do arrest an individual, there is a concern that they have to take up an enormous amount of time in actually taking them back to the police station and going through the processes of that, which could take up to several hours, therefore taking an officer away from roles. The New South Wales example of mandatory centres—or non-mandatory centres, actually—might be a way of looking at that in the peak CBD area.

It is important that we develop some sort of on-the-spot infringement fine that could be issued. I note that that is from $160 up to a $500 fine, but it all depends on the number of those that are actually issued, because word of mouth spreads very quickly about people who have been caught and it encourages others to make sure they do the right thing. There is no doubt about that.

There was a question raised about the number of police who are actually operating in these peak entertainment areas on these nights. I would be interested if the minister could confirm that with me. Obviously it is an operational matter but, from the liquor licensing issue, there must be a lot of dialogue that occurs with the commissioner about the number of police who are scheduled to work. I would be interested to know the numbers and also the time frames in which those numbers are operating on those Friday and Saturday nights and early mornings.

This person has gone on to suggest this time-out bus, which is a bit like what New South Wales has done, where there is a chance for people who are obviously under the weather (or whatever term you want to use for it) to get away, to cool down and sober themselves up a bit, and I wonder if there has been any thought to that sort of resource. I know it comes at a cost but it also comes at a potential saving if those people are not out there creating issues for others.

The person did go on to say that all premises that are licensed have that licence subject to meeting all licensing requirements. Accordingly, if there are any issues between the licensed premises and violence and alcohol-fuelled behaviour, the existing licence requirements need to be properly enforced. That goes back a bit to other submissions that have already been put on the record, stating that the laws do currently exist. That is the concern of some sections: the laws are currently there but they may not be being utilised in the way that they were intended to be.

Proprietors advise that licence inspectors, according to this person's feedback to me, rarely walk into the premises and certainly not at the late-night and early morning hours as they should. We know about the targeted programs, and I have referred to the 25 last year and the 30 this year. but I would be interested to know, of the inspectors who are out there, how many are actually out at those peak times and what number of inspections might take place at those peak times, too.

An issue has been put to me that there should be better lighting for the lanes and alleyways. I presume that relies upon some negotiation with the Adelaide City Council and the business premises also about trying to improve public safety there. I think I have read about Adelaide City Council's putting up an investment in CCTV, and I am just wondering whether the government is contributing towards that, expanding upon it or helping with it.

A suggestion was put to me about more street seating in lit areas to actually encourage people, instead of being in these facilities, especially in the warmer months, to take the opportunity to actually be part of a group that will sit and talk for a little while without necessarily having alcohol with them.

Before I sit down, I just want to reinforce the fact that the Liberal Party has never supported the mandatory closure, and that goes back to earlier debates in the previous parliament about this. The amendment we are proposing is a continuation of that policy that we have held for a long time. The amendment we are proposing is to section 11A and is not designed to impinge upon any other authority that the commissioner or the minister have in proposing a code. The late-night trading code is, I understand, the third code that I think the commissioner has put in place. It purely relates to the ability to introduce a code provision that will impact potentially quite significantly upon a business.

I do recognise that, because there is not bar hopping, there will be people who stay there until they decide to leave. I do not doubt that, and there are no doubt some venues that are probably more popular at different times of the evening too, so they might miss out on an opportunity for that next level of client to come to them, but the question I pose is: what is the effect on the value of the business? If it is licensed to operate across a certain period of time but a code provision is put in force, is there some level of detrimental effect on that and will that create some financial pressures for them?

There are other members who want to make contributions to this. There will be some questions in the third reading on it and obviously the debate about the amendment, but I do commend the minister especially in the last six or seven months for the consultation that has occurred on this. I do know it is across the industry. I do know there has been a lot of public discussion about the late-night trading code, so it is not something that has suddenly come out of it.

It has been out there for a while. It has been talked about and there has been dialogue with the operators about this. I know they have had preparation time to get ready for things. I am not looking to make any investment that has occurred a waste of money: I am just looking to have a discussion about the impacts that restrictions on time and opening of doors might have. I look forward to the contribution of other members.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:40): I rise to support the comments of the shadow minister for consumer and business affairs on this very important issue. I am a former publican in the outback. I have held quite a few liquor licences—me, my company and my business partners—four, in fact, and four of them simultaneously. It does not make me an expert on this issue because it is a long way from Hindley Street (I acknowledge that), but it gives me some insight into the issues and I spent some years running licensed venues. One of them, in fact, was a 24-hour liquor licence—24 hours a day, seven days a week, non-stop for 365 days a year, serving alcohol. Certainly, on Good Friday and Christmas Day, and other times throughout the 24-hour cycle, there were different guidelines and rules about what you could do and how you could serve your alcohol, but it was pretty well non-stop.

The other important thing I would like to say, as did the member for Goyder, is that the Liberal Party opposition agrees with almost everything in this bill and it would be a great shame if the area that we disagree with the government on was turned into something bigger than it actually is. We really do understand how incredibly important it is to deal with this issue. We really do understand the issues about alcohol abuse and the health issues that result from alcohol abuse (alcohol-fuelled violence), and many other very important issues that affect our state are not to be overlooked and we do take them very seriously.

As the member for Goyder said, we agree with the minister and the government on the vast majority of issues in this bill, but we do not agree with the 3am lockout or, as some people call it, the 3am lock-in. I can also say quite openly that I have no desire to be drinking anywhere at 3am—I cannot see why that is necessary—but there are plenty of people, plenty of adults, we know, who are legally entitled to do so and who have a different opinion, and they go about taking up their right very regularly.

In relation to this issue of the 3am venue, I would like to put on the record clearly that it has received favourable feedback in Whyalla and a couple of other places where it has been used, but I think the distinction is that a regional centre such as Whyalla and the CBD of Adelaide (which is really where it would be in effect) are very different places. The number of premises and the number of patrons are extremely different and they require totally different management, and the number of risks on the streets late at night in Adelaide compared to other parts of our state are very different as well.

I am especially concerned about the likelihood, if this comes into effect, that on a Friday or Saturday (or any other night of the week, potentially) at 3am on Hindley Street, or other CBD locations, there would genuinely be mayhem. I do not mean mayhem in a global catastrophe sense but mayhem in terms of managing the precinct and venue responsibly when people flow onto the street because they do not want to be locked in or locked out, depending on your perspective. I have heard a lot of people use both terms, including the police. That would be a very serious issue.

We are only talking about this because there are lots of people. If there were not lots of people in these late-night venues at 3am, we would not even be talking about this issue. So, by definition, there are a lot of people who will be caught up in this. Some will choose to stay and some will choose to go, but the reality is that anybody who leaves a venue after 3am will not be able to re-enter another one.

I think that has significant risks, particularly for more vulnerable people, and particularly women. That is in no way trying to say that women are less responsible for themselves than anybody else, but they are, by definition, less physically capable of looking after themselves on the streets, although perhaps more mentally capable. Women would be put at risk, and they have said this.

Young men perhaps could be at risk as well when they are alone on the street late at night and cannot enter a venue for either another drink, something to eat, protection or whatever it might be. They might be at risk of violence from other men. If someone is locked out of a venue, perhaps inadvertently, and separated from their friends, a man or a woman, they will certainly be at greater risk on the streets than if they were with their friends on the street.

We all know that people have mobile phones and can call their friends, but that may not work because the friend is perhaps intoxicated and not quite as alert as they should be (and we are only even discussing these things because that is exactly what is happening at the time; if that was not the state of play this issue would not be being discussed), or they might be in a night club and cannot hear the phone ringing. So, the friend might be outside, inadvertently locked out, and the rest of the group of friends are inside, not knowing that their friend or colleague is outside, and would not even be aware of it.

So there is great risk of people being locked out of venues and on the streets, and that puts the police in a very difficult situation. The police do everything they possibly can to keep people safe on our streets and in licensed venues as well, but having potentially an influx of people onto the street at or after 3am, who cannot re-enter other facilities, will make the job of the police even more difficult.

I say very clearly that the real issue here is about the operation of the venues, it is about the way the licensees go about their work and, equally, perhaps more importantly, it is about the way the customers, the patrons, go about their business, how they behave and how they go about their night out. I will never agree that it is up to a patron to hit the town, paint it red (as the expression goes) and, when it does not turn out well, say, 'It was somebody else's fault because I was not looked after properly'. Certainly there is a strong responsibility to look after patrons, but there is an even stronger responsibility for everyone who wants to be a customer in these situations to be responsible as well.

I wonder about the possibility that venues will increase the prices they charge after 3am. After 3am the people running late night venues know that the customers who are in their premises cannot drink anywhere else, except perhaps at home or at a friend's house. They cannot leave those premises and go to another venue, so no doubt there will be the temptation to increase prices after 3am when, essentially, you have a captive audience, when people there will have no choice, if they want to keep drinking in that part of town, but to drink exactly where they are. It really is the operation of the venue and the behaviour of the patrons that is most important.

It might interest this house to know that, when I was running a 24-hour liquor licence in the outback, I actually chose to close between midnight and 6am on weeknights for quite a few reasons, the main reason being staff safety in that situation, which I am sure is quite different from Hindley Street. I was very uncomfortable with the fact that my staff, late at night in a remote place, could have to confront a whole range of people or events that might come along in the middle of the night, out of the blue, and put them at serious risk.

There was a reason why this venue had a 24-hour liquor licence: because we had 24-hour customers. It was very close to Woomera and the Narrunga tracking station and to Roxby Downs. It was very close to a whole range of customers who, for the all the right reasons, had a 24-hour cycle that was out of kilter with what most of us would consider normal, so it was quite responsible for this venue to have a 24-hour liquor licence, but I decided to change that. It was an operator decision and not an enforced decision or new law; nobody came along and said, 'You have to do this, you have no choice'. It was an operator decision that I made primarily for the safety of my staff.

Just as an aside, one of the greatest challenges that we faced at the time of deciding to close at midnight was how to lock the doors. We had locks on the doors but no keys because the doors had not been locked for probably a decade, so that was interesting but we managed to get over that, of course. It really should be an operator decision. We have rules and regulations and they get tighter as time goes on with regard to the responsibility of venue operators, as do the rules and regulations that apply to the behaviour of patrons. I think the issue here is to make sure that people act responsibly, not to lock them in or to lock them out.

Let me say in conclusion, I think this bill may well have some very serious unintended consequences for a whole range of people, including the police who have to manage the streets 24 hours a day. The opposition does very genuinely agree with the vast majority of things that are included in this bill. This is the area, though, that we do not agree with.

Let me remind the house of the difficulties that existed decades ago at 6pm when we had 6pm closing, essentially for the same sorts of reasons. It was a different time, different community, different expectations, but broadly there was a view that there was no need, that it was inappropriate and people who were drinking after 6pm were probably going to cause trouble and mischief. That led to the 6pm swill, and I am sure that no member of this house wants this legislation to lead to the 3am swill. The 6pm closings did not work, and I suspect that the 3am lockouts will not work either.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (11:52): I rise to speak on the Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. As the member for Adelaide, most of the licensed premises that would be affected by this bill are in my electorate and I have had considerable correspondence with those businesses. I have taken quite an interest in Hindley Street from a safety aspect and because it is known to be a vibrant area but sometimes also a problem area.

I have been involved in two of the Adelaide City Council's safety audits that are done between 11pm and 3am where you visit and look at the lighting and the safety and all the different considerations along Hindley Street. I have also doorknocked every business during daylight hours to get feedback. I have also been on another walk with the head of the west end night traders where I was able to enter most of the venues in Hindley Street so that I could see for myself. Not being a late night party person myself, I had not been into most of the venues before but as the local member I feel that it is important to know what is going on.

Some of the residents in the city—in fact, some of the Neighbourhood Watch stalwarts for the south-west Neighbourhood Watch—would say that there is quite a beat up on safety and that they have lived in the city for 50 to 60 years and there has been no increase in alcohol fuelled violence, there has just been a greater increase of media attention and more awareness brought to it.

I had my office try to verify—you know, let's find out what is the extent of the problem that we are dealing with here. Certainly you could say that there is a problem if there is even one lot of alcohol fuelled violence in a city and that there is a problem because we do not want any violence in a city. However, you need to examine the extent, you also need to examine the possible ways that you can reduce that. My office tried to get figures for Hindley Street but they are not available. You can get local government areas and you can also get the city council areas but my office has been unable to get street by street figures where you can get a comparison over the last 10 years, for example, to see whether there has been an increase in violence. Is there a problem or is this just the media? Either way, there need to be things done to make Hindley Street safer but is this the right way to go about it?

From my safety audits I could give you a list of 100 things and 100 ways that we could make Hindley Street better and safer. Things have been mentioned by other members so far such as better lighting. There are some alleyways. My office was on North Terrace for about eight years, and in Woodsons Lane, for example, every Monday morning there would be vomit, urine and broken glass on my way to work. So there needed to be better lighting; perhaps there needed to be more toilets available, some urinals, the pop-up urinals that they have in other countries. There are certainly no drinking fountains, there is a lack of lighting, there is a lack of seating. There are many ways that we could improve safety.

Safety is absolutely one of my priorities. I recently visited the Melbourne City Council CCTV camera control room and their control panel, where I saw how they manage safety in their city. They have 70 cameras with two staff watching those cameras 24 hours a day. I visited the Adelaide control room, and there were five staff, from memory, and four of them were only monitoring alarm calls to buildings, and there was only one person monitoring all of the cameras in the city, which is absolutely impossible. So, basically the system of cameras, the way I see it, in Adelaide is more responsive or reactive; if there has been an incident then it will show up. However, it could be used proactively with proper staffing levels, in my opinion.

On one of the safety audits that I did, when I was walked back to my car in front of Parliament House, clearly there was a gentleman who walked up and down North Terrace three times purposefully bumping into people coming in the opposite direction. In my opinion, there should be a CCTV camera in front of Parliament House, and I am certain there is. If a police officer was proactively watching that, they would have sent someone out immediately, because even I could tell that that person was going to be staying in the city until they found someone who would respond to their aggressive behaviour and start a fight. They went up and down in front of Parliament House looking for trouble, and in my opinion they should have been watched on a CCTV camera, and someone should have noticed that behaviour and had them move on immediately.

There are plenty of proactive ways. We have red teams and green teams; we have got the Salvation Army; we have got the Edge Church; we have got so many groups of people available on Hindley Street to deliver coffees, or water, or help people, but they are not coordinated. One of them could easily be in that control room on a Friday night or Saturday night, possibly an older person or a person with a disability who cannot do the street walking and who definitely wants to help. They could easily be there coordinating, saying, 'There's a young girl sitting in the gutter in a laneway. Could you send your blue team around to go and see that she is okay?' There could easily be vans with sausage sizzles and food, that are helping people that have drunk too much and get them off the street or get them to a safe area.

I question whether a blanket restriction on all businesses, whether they are troublemaker businesses or not, is actually a fair thing to do. I question the restraint of trade. If these people have legitimately been awarded a 24-hour liquor licence, so they have gone through the proper process, and now you decide by legislation to blanket it and tell all of them that is no longer valid and they now no longer can admit anyone else after 3am in the morning, to me that is unfair. To me, that potentially reduces their income, which reduces the value of their business, which would affect, then, any debts they have against it and their ability to buy other businesses. It could affect a whole chain of businesses. When you devalue something you affect a lot more than just that business; it would affect everything that that business owner holds, so I do question that.

I question the retrospectivity that, if they do have a license that they obtained in a legal manner, you can then say, 'Well that's no longer available; we've changed the conditions, I'm sorry,' and you do not even have a valid reason. In New South Wales, for example—and it is something that I think should be considered—they have a bit of a points system, so if there are premises that cause trouble, why not restrict their licences, so that if there are 10 incidents in a year, their liquor licence might be brought back to 2am. If somebody has had five incidents for the year, they might have to shut at four and earn that privilege back.

Everybody is being punished, including wine bars and businesses that possibly even serve food or anything. I think it is unfair to punish everybody for the failings of a few, which brings into question whether it is even the premises that are causing the problem here. What about people's personal responsibility to look after themselves, to drink to their limits and to be responsible for their behaviour?

It was only in 2011 that South Australia brought in, through the liquor licensing provisions, an on-the-spot fine of just $160 for offensive or disorderly conduct. There are a few problems that I see with this: firstly, you must be in the vicinity of a licensed premises. I remember that, when this bill first came up and I was researching it, there had been a fight on a bus near Frome Road and there had been, I think, a stabbing in Rundle Mall at 2pm on a weekend. They are not in the vicinity of a liquor licence venue and they also did not occur between 3am and 7am. So, I think it should be covered under the summary offences, it should be an on-the-spot fine and it should be a lot higher.

In Victoria, for example, for a first offence of drunk and disorderly, there is a fine of $704, which I think would make you really think about whether you want to go out and get drunk and be disorderly on the street. If you do that again, it is $1,408. I think that fining the actual troublemakers with a really heavy hand might make them think about what they are doing. I think a $160 fine, which is only in the vicinity of a venue—

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms SANDERSON: You have put it up? Terrific.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms SANDERSON: That's good to know. It has been put up to $500, so that is terrific. The other issue is that it should not only be in the vicinity of a licensed venue because the definition of 'the vicinity' is not clear. Many of the police who I have spoken to are hesitant to even use it because what is the definition of 'in the vicinity'? When I was on one of my night audits, I said, 'Surely that would mean the whole of Hindley Street, because there are so many licensed premises that, anywhere on Hindley Street, you should be able to receive an on-the-spot fine?' The answer was, 'No, you need to be in the vicinity of a licensed premises.' So, I think that is an issue as well.

I think that, if someone is drunk and disorderly anywhere in the city or anywhere in the state, they should be able to be fined and I think it should be under the summary offences and have more power than it has just being under the Liquor Licensing Act. There are many things that I think that we could do and we could do better to improve the safety of people in the city and the residents in the city as well.

One of the issues is the CCTV cameras. We are still waiting on the government's report and the city council's report to be released. While the city council and the Labor government have not actually got a plan—that we have seen, anyway—for CCTV cameras and better monitoring, better surveillance and proactive use of the cameras, they are wanting the venues to add another cost to doing their business and do what I consider is perhaps the job of the police, which is to have a camera system throughout the city and North Adelaide which is proactively monitored to stop trouble before it happens and not just be used to have evidence after the fact. It is too late, when somebody has been king hit and they are knocked out or brain-damaged or permanently disabled, to just have good footage to prove who did it. I think the cameras should be monitored properly and they should be used in a proactive manner to stop any violence.

Other issues that have been brought to my attention include the fairness of the exemption for the Casino and the troubles that will also cause on North Terrace if the only venue you can go to after you have left Hindley Street or other areas in the city is the Casino. I do not think they would want that trouble either. They are going to be put in a very awkward position with potentially drunk or disorderly people trying to get in. They will all be loitering around the front, which causes line-ups, which causes fights and which causes trouble.

Another issue that I can foresee is, when I have been on these visits to the city, a lot of people are sitting outside and eating. I would encourage people to eat if they are out clubbing, but, with this new lock-in, it means that you cannot actually leave to go and get food if you are with a group of people or if you plan to keep going, because you will not be allowed back in. I think that could also affect the food businesses, because their market is now gone. I think it will have an effect on other businesses, rather than just the licensed premises.

These are the main points that I wanted to mention, the fact that I think a blanket ruling is unfair for those law-abiding premises. I think that harsh penalties for those actually causing the trouble, and penalties or restrictions for the premises that are causing the problems or where the trouble is occurring as well are fair enough, but a blanket ruling that affects everybody is certainly not part of the Liberal philosophy. Whilst I assure you the safety of everyone in the city is of great concern to me, I can think of at least 100 ways that I could improve that that would be less draconian than this bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:06): All matters of liquor licensing are of interest to me as the member for Schubert—that includes, of course, the Barossa Valley and the wine industry and its link to tourism. We all agree that the control of the sale of alcoholic drinks is important, but on the other hand, we do not want to live in a nanny state either. I therefore join my colleagues in opposing the 3 o'clock lockout. Three o'clock is too late, if this is seen as a method of controlling alcohol fuelled violence, which we all are very concerned about.

Most venues in my area are closed voluntarily well before that time anyway. The latest one in the Barossa that I know of closes at 2am. Yes, we have had a few incidents over the years, but I am pleased to report that it has much improved in recent times because it has been brought to the attention of the hotelier and he has taken the steps to fix it. I have been in that hotel myself at night just to see what goes on.

I pay tribute to the police, particularly the Barossa police, for the positive and active role that they play in relation to this, because they are the only ones out there at night, keeping the peace. We did have one serious incident two or three years ago involving a highly intoxicated lady and three police officers who were accused of unprofessional conduct. You all know about this; it was in The Advertiser and a very strong opinion was put, which I thought pretty unfair.

I just happen to know these three officers, one personally, who has since retired. They all have excellent police and community records. In my last days here, I want to put on record my full support of those officers and the action they felt they had to take. It became a very public issue, with very inflammatory accusations. To the three officers, I publicly apologise for the public aspersions on your professionalism and characters. It really was a kangaroo court and they were not able or given the opportunity to defend themselves. I have no problem in accepting the word of the police and not the so-called victim. It really was extraordinary and extreme behaviour and had to be forcibly restrained. Whether it was alcohol or drugs, I do not make that accusation, but it was extreme behaviour.

What is the answer if we are to oppose that part of this bill, although we agree with most of it? We need to change the public perception about excessive alcohol abuse. Firstly, it is a health issue. It is bad for your health if you regularly write yourself off. Two standard drinks are okay; any more and you are going to hurt yourself. Secondly, drunken and lewd behaviour is not acceptable, not macho, not sexy, and not on. It is gross and it is boorish. We need to put that message out there.

We need to run a similar campaign to the quit smoking campaign, which really was effective. It really worked and it has now reduced smoking. I know that that program was initiated by a Liberal minister, the Hon. Michael Armitage. I was sitting here, and I thought, 'This won't work.' Can I say, it certainly has. I know that the blood alcohol testing of drivers has had a very positive effect, and, of course, drug detection as well, which is much worse than the government thought. Of course, history will reveal that the Liberal Party wanted to introduce that much sooner than the government did. Now we are seeing that the statistics on drug related accidents, violence and fatalities are frightening indeed. We need to enforce this message. Remember, controlled alcohol consumption can be good for your health and quite therapeutic in moderation. I remind the house that I was a teetotaller when I first came to this place—

An honourable member: And you've made up for it since.

Mr VENNING: And I have made up for it since! I do not regret it one bit, and I control it. I do not regret it, because I think it is a relaxant, and it enables me to settle down and sleep well and, anyway, it is a key industry in my electorate of Schubert in the Barossa Valley. We need to promote drinking in moderation, cut the drugs, live longer and live better. Remember, two of alcohol, one of water.

I also pay tribute to all of those in hotels and clubs who do all they can to encourage responsible alcohol consumption and enforce behavioural standards. I take my hat off to them and we recognise their efforts. I can remember 6 o'clock closing clearly and, you are right: it was a mad dash at 6 o'clock with people pouring it down or lining them up along the bar. That was from the Tom Playford era and one thing that Dunstan did, and I think it was the right move, was to abolish that, and it was the end of 6 o'clock closing, so I think that open trading is accepted as normal.

The Hon. L.R. Breuer: You're too young. Were you there with your dad?

Mr VENNING: I remember that the member for Giles knows how old I am because she is not much younger herself. A little bit. Yes, if you put it against the calendar you will see that we can remember quite clearly.

The Hon. L.R. Breuer: You must have been there with your dad.

Mr VENNING: I was too young to go into the hotel, for sure. Not that my father ever went into the hotel—never. We were Methodist and they did not go into any hotels but, after sport and things, you would often be near the hotel and you could see what happened after tennis—down to the pub, quick, quick; you had an hour to get full. That is what happened: abuse. So, it was not me but I saw it happen. I agree with the member for Adelaide. Why should you punish all the responsible outlets for the mistakes and foolishness of a few? I think that is a very good comment.

Finally, to the Hotels Association, particularly Mr Peter Hurley, we recognise and commend your efforts in being proactive and positive in publicly airing these views. We are left in no doubt as to what the Hotels Association thinks. It has a good reputation, and it will defend and protect that reputation. We agree with the tenets of this bill, or most parts of it, but the 3am lockout (or the lock-in or whatever you like to call it) is not supported by us. It really is, I believe, an overreaction.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My apology: member for Mount Gambier.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:12): Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. It is nice to see that we are all awake today. I do support the intention of this amendment bill to curb excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related violence. There has been a new code of practice under the Liquor Licensing Act which came into force on January this year, and clubs now have to undertake a risk assessment and develop a management plan with staff and volunteers completing training on the management plan.

One of the problems I have with these types of bills is that often they have very detrimental effects on some of our very small clubs, particularly out in the country. I would like to congratulate Clubs SA on the development of a template management plan as well two liquor folders, the liquor compliance folder and the liquor records folder, to assist clubs with their liquor licensing requirements. They say:

These folders have been a huge success with both Clubs SA members and government as they're a one-stop-shop for all things liquor licensing.

I have had clubs approach me in my electorate with the responsible service of alcohol and the fact that they now have to have people trained, etc. and, whilst under section 71(1a) there is no fee for those small clubs, it still costs them about $40 to get each person trained, and that can be quite onerous on those very small clubs. I do note that under section 97(2), with those clubs that do have a limited scope of business there can be an exemption granted by the Liquor Licensing Authority.

Exactly how that works, I do not know and I will be seeking further advice, but we must always be careful—because these clubs are so important to our communities—that they are not put in a situation where they can no longer operate, so I do plead with the government of the day to make sure that our smaller clubs are not put in jeopardy in bringing a bill like this before us, which I do support in the fact that we do have to stop a lot of this over-consumption of alcohol and the violence that comes about because of it.

I also support strongly the proposal to have an industry-wide approval for the licensing of responsible persons and, particularly out in the country, often it is the same people who will help at different clubs. If they can have a licence that basically goes right across all those areas, it will make a big difference for all of us, so I certainly support that.

As far as late night lockouts go, there are various opinions. I do believe that we have to make sure that people are not just moving from one to the next to the next all night and causing trouble as they move from each place but, by the same token, those businesses that do have license to operate should be able to welcome patrons. However, it is often abused in the fact that a lot of our people now do not seem to go out until about 12 o'clock and they will go to the pub for a while and then go to another club till about 3 o'clock and then to another club and another club and we end up with them walking all over the streets half or fully full some of the time. I have a mixed opinion on that one, but I will listen to the debate carefully before I make up my mind on that. I do commend the bill and the intentions of the bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:17): I support this bill and I would like to canvass a few issues. For some reason alcohol in our society is often given a free rein with significant detrimental consequences. I drink. I do not drink a lot. I have never been drunk, but I enjoy a wine, usually from the southern vales—I can say that; the member for the Barossa area is not here—and I enjoy the odd beer, but our society is literally drenched in alcohol and, sadly, a lot of people cannot handle it.

I think the first point is that there needs to be improved education and awareness about the consequences of consuming alcohol. It is a poison. It is a toxin. We have just heard evidence in one of our committees from an expert saying that there are 10 cancers directly linked to the consumption of alcohol. We know the other problems are domestic violence, drink driving—obviously by definition—and there are a lot of other health issues as well.

It is a commodity that needs to be controlled. We do not have to go quite as far as the Muslim countries, although I think they recognised early on the negative consequences of alcohol and they banned it entirely. In the United States we know that the legal age for consuming alcohol is generally 21, but I do not think that change will occur here from the current age.

Recently I was in Coober Pedy with the Social Development Committee looking at the use and abuse of alcohol and we heard that in that town, which has got approximately 2,000 permanent residents, last year they sold 18,000 four litre-casks and then on top of that thousands of bottles of wine, plus beer, plus spirits. What that is doing is destroying the Aboriginal people and some of the non-Aboriginal people who are consuming to excess, people coming in from the APY lands, which are dry areas, and drinking to excess and basically risking a premature death. It is a situation which I believe the Liquor Licensing Commissioner is going to address. I hope so.

I think that we, as a community, as a government and as a parliament, have to stop pussyfooting around with the consumption of alcohol. Yes, we should allow people to consume alcohol sensibly and appropriately, but we should not tolerate the consequences of bad behaviour. I believe the onus should always be on the consumer. I have always said that in relation to the sale of cigarettes. The emphasis tends to be on the retailer. I believe the emphasis should be more on the consumer when it comes to accountability and responsibility for one's actions.

The New South Wales government has recently introduced a measure called the Intoxicated Persons (Sobering Up Centres Trial) Act 2013. There is an article in The Australian of 9 July this year by Nick Cater—I think many members here would recall his days in Adelaide—titled, 'The crime of being drunk in charge of a fist', in which he states:

The chances of being run over by a drunk while crossing Sydney's George Street on a Friday night are somewhat smaller than they were in the 1970s, before the introduction of random breath testing.

The chances of receiving a rum and coke-fuelled headbutt are, however, considerably greater since the offence of being drunk and disorderly was removed from the statute in 1979. There is zero tolerance for drunks in charge of motor vehicles, but drunks in charge of fists or other hard-edged body parts are simply asked, politely, to move on.

He goes on to point out that the bill (to which I just referred) is:

...a modest attempt by the Barry O'Farrell government to deal with this peculiar anomaly. For the first time in decades, police will have the right to remove tanked and troublesome patrons from the streets and place them in holding pens until they are capable of getting themselves home without king-hitting anyone foolish enough to make eye contact.

I think that this is a trial the government should watch with interest. It is a preventative measure in terms of someone who has had too much to drink and is likely to engage in behaviour which is going to hurt someone. How often, just this year, have we heard of a young male (usually) who cops a whack in the face, sometimes with fatal consequences.

I think we need to get back to a situation where being drunk in a public place requires a response. I know we have mobile assistance patrols, particularly for Aboriginal people, but that is really trying to deal with the problem, in some ways, after the horse has literally bolted. Sure, we need to deal with people who are intoxicated in terms of ensuring their health and well being, but I think we need a tougher approach to people who are walking time bombs, those who have had too much to consume and are looking for someone to punch and to harm.

The lockout provision, which seems to have got the opposition excited, I think has merit. I do not understand why anyone would object to it. If you are in a premise and getting alcohol, I do not see why you should be able to walk down the street and enter another place and get even more sloshed. Newcastle has introduced a lockout provision which has worked extremely well, and I urge members to look at what has happened there. Physical assaults and other unacceptable crime has reduced significantly since the introduction of a lockout provision.

As we know, after midnight at a lot of places people indulge in shots and get hyped up on too much alcohol. If you are in a venue and you have had a fair bit to drink, I do not think it is appropriate that you can then hotel shop until you get even more blotto. So I do not agree with the opposition on this particular section. I think the commissioner should have the power to insist on a lockout but, as I understand it, a licensed premise would have a right of appeal or the ability to go to the commissioner if they could argue that they had a good track record in managing the consumption of alcohol. I think the opposition need to reconsider their attitude to this, because I think it is a reasonable proposal.

One matter that is not addressed—and we obviously cannot address every issue in one bill—is a concern that I have had for a long time in relation to foetal alcohol syndrome. There are several Aboriginal people within my family. One lad was not allowed to be adopted in South Australia because we have a racist policy where Europeans cannot adopt black children. One of my close relatives has two Aboriginal boys who have now reached their latter teens, and one has now fathered three children.

Sadly, some of the children of that partnership are suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome. One of those lads was permanently affected himself with physical deformity and all sorts of health problems, which will go on forever, and are now being repeated in the next generation. He is Aboriginal and he married an Aboriginal lass. She did not drink for the first pregnancy, but the second one she did. We believe that youngster, now at the age of two, is affected. The child is being treated at Flinders for an eating disorder at the age of two. We suspect that the third child will be affected also.

When my relative contacted the police in Murray Bridge to say, 'What can you do? Can you help?', because the mother is so intoxicated and a threat to herself and others, my relative says that the sergeant there said, 'We don't want to get involved in this', and he referred to the situation in Murray Bridge as 'genocide by welfare'. He said, 'Go and talk to some other agency. We are sick of trying to deal with these issues. We get no support.' What we are seeing now are more young children permanently affected.

People talk about sexual abuse, but foetal alcohol syndrome is a permanent disability. One of the boys who was fostered by my niece will never be able to work, but the other one may be able to, hopefully. What we are seeing is a repetition. This issue is not about violence; we know it is a cultural thing. As a society, a parliament and a government, I do not believe we can sit back and allow people to destroy themselves and their children, whether at Coober Pedy or anywhere else. I think that is an issue that needs to be explored further, but this bill will not address that.

I think the question of cheap alcohol needs to be looked at. I understand the Liquor Licensing Commissioner might be looking at prohibiting the sale of cask wine in some areas, requiring photo ID and prohibiting the sale of alcohol to people who come from an area that is a dry area by law. I think some action is required. In terms of places like Hindley Street—I am getting a bit too old to go there myself—CCTV cameras are good. They are not addressing the root cause of the issue, but they are important in catching people who are breaking the law.

Overall, I think this bill is a step in the right direction, but sometimes you have to be tough to actually help people and to save them from their own poor judgement. For too long as a society, I think the parliament and governments have pussyfooted around with alcohol consumption to the extent that people who misuse it are able to do so with impunity. As I said, this bill will not solve all of the issues that I have alluded to, but I think it is a step in the right direction, including the lock-out provision, and anyone who has doubts about that should have a look at the Newcastle experience.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (12:29): I thank those members who have contributed to the debate. I want to start on a high note, because I think that it is always nice to start on a high note, and that is that everybody who has spoken in relation to this bill has said that they support the bill. The only element in any of the conversations we have been having in this room today about which there appears to be concern is, in fact, not in this bill at all. Accordingly, there is an amendment which is filed which, in due course no doubt, the member for Goyder will speak to us about, which seeks, through this bill, to affect something which is not part of this bill at all. The high note is: thank you to all members for indicating your support for the bill, and we will deal with the amendment in due course.

I should sit down really at this point and go into committee, but I wanted to have the high bit, and I wanted to have this little pause between the high bit and some responses. I just want to say a couple of things in response to people. First of all, can I say that the member for Goyder, for whom I have the greatest of respect, has always, as in this matter, conducted himself in an entirely fair and reasonable manner, and I appreciate that very much. I appreciate also that the member for Goyder is, after all, the representative of his party and has to be here doing what, no doubt, they have instructed him to do in his party room and, to that extent, anything I say about the proposed amendment is specifically not directed at the member for Goyder.

Can I also say that I am a little concerned about the information the member for Goyder shared with us a little while ago about the AHA having spoken to him and said that they are not really happy with the late night code, in particular, the end to bar hopping. I want to make it very clear to everybody here—and I make this statement very clearly, and I hope that Mr Horne and the others hear this—that we did not sit down around the table with Mr Horne and his friends for six months and make a number of compromises, many of which the member for Goyder read out in his second reading contribution, where he identified the changes from the original draft code to the final code. All of those changes were made in good faith as a result of a compromise between me, my staff and Mr Horne.

We all recognised that there were things in the code originally which I wanted which Mr Horne did not want, and the code as it presently stands represents a compromise. I gave away a whole bunch of things that I thought were important, moderated them, in order to get consensus with Mr Horne, which I thought I had. Indeed, I have media takeouts here from 30 May this year, where he said:

In total, we've certainly got things in there that we're not pleased about as we think we should be but, at the same time, there has been compromise all round and there is goodwill about the process.

The AHA is either supporting or not supporting the compromise deal which they worked out with us, which gained them things they could not have obtained were it not for that compromise. If it is the case that the AHA now do not support the compromise deal—in other words, 'We will sit around the table, we will deal with you, we will extract from you bits and pieces we want and then, at the end, we reserve the right to walk away and still bargain for the things we had agreed to forgo'—if that is what they are saying, that has taught me a very valuable lesson about how I should engage with the AHA in the future, the way in which I should engage with the AHA in the future, and the extent to which I should be prepared to compromise with them in the future—if it is the case that they are walking away from what they signed up for.

If the AHA are not walking away from what they signed up for, why on earth are we having this debate about lockouts when the AHA has already said to me, and through a six-month long compromise process, that they can live with it? Why? Either the AHA is speaking with forked tongue or somebody has their wires crossed. They are the only two possibilities.

I say to all members here that I did not sit down around a table, and have Mr Greene and others sit around the table with the AHA for six months, nutting out a compromise agreement so that they could come around and then try to renege on the deal—if that is what they are doing. If that is not what they are doing, and if they are still as good as their word and they are sticking to the fact that we spent a lot of time forming a compromise, then why on earth are we having this barren debate about a lockout that the industry has accepted? Why are we doing this?

I am going to proceed on the basis that the AHA is not a double-dealer. I am going to proceed on the basis that they have not been saying one thing to me and something else to the opposition. I am going to proceed on the basis that they are as good as their word and signed up for a compromise earlier this year after six months of intensive discussion—and they do not like some of this but they are prepared to cop it as part of the overall package.

That is what I am going to proceed on the basis of because, until it is proven otherwise, I am prepared to accept Mr Horne as a man of his word. He signed up for this. Make no mistake, he signed up for it. There is a lot of stuff in that code I do not like because, in my opinion, it is too soft. There is a lot of stuff, but it is in there because we wanted to get an agreement with Mr Horne, which we did obtain and which is 'the code'.

Who else is there? We have dealt with the AHA and they have signed up for this. Who else is left? I could mention a certain well-known identity in Hindley Street. I saw him on television the other night complaining about the late-night code. I saw him on television complaining about the idea that bar hopping would stop at 3 o'clock in the morning. As Minister for Consumer Affairs, I have received some very interesting complaints about people being charged exorbitant amounts of money on their credit card for services in part of that establishment.

I also read in the paper that people who had been in that particular establishment were found to be licking the road outside the establishment early in the morning and were taken to hospital because they had consumed what is described euphemistically as 'bad' ecstasy. I would like to know what 'good' ecstasy is—but there you go, they got some bad ecstasy and they wound up in serious trouble. It was reported in the media—I am not making this up, I am just telling you what was reported in the media—that those people obtained that bad ecstasy from a certain venue. I assume that the opposition is not lining up with that person either.

Mr Griffiths: I'm not sure who you are talking about.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will tell you. I do not want to go into too much detail here because I do not want to abuse the privilege of this place. I will speak to you quietly afterwards and fill you in. I assume you are not in cahoots with that person either. Then there are a few other people who are not members of the AHA and who the AHA, quite frankly, is pretty happy are not members of the AHA because they do not play the game. Member for Goyder and the opposition, are you speaking for them? Are they the people you are looking after? Who are you looking after? Who is the member for Adelaide looking after: her residents or a bunch of drunks stumbling from one bar to another after 3 o'clock in the morning?

Let's get real about this. What we are saying is that after 3 o'clock in the morning, if you still have not had enough to drink, stay where you are and keep drinking, but once you have finished go home—just go home. What is so weird about that?

It might be interesting for members to note that there are two small towns around the place—New York and London, to name them—which are apparently lively places, I am told. Guess what time their pubs shut? They shut at 1 o'clock, and people in New York, including Frank Sinatra, were still able to say it was a city that never slept. There is a whole song about it, but would that song have been possible? Goodness me, how could they sing that song when they close their pubs at 1 o'clock? Poor old Frank; nobody must have told him!

In London—'England swings like a pendulum do' (does anyone remember that one?)—guess what? They close down at 1 o'clock as well. Horror of horrors, the most terrible attack on civil liberties—after 3 o'clock drunks cannot go from one place to another to get more drunk. My God! That is a nanny state, isn't it, stopping drunks from moving around the streets getting more drunk. And, as I said the beginning, none of that is even in this bill.

The member for Adelaide made a number of uninformed observations, with respect. First of all, about CCTV, we are doing work on CCTV, but you may be interested to know that it has nothing to do with the Liquor Licensing Act. There is nothing in the Liquor Licensing Act about CCTV because it is the Liquor Licensing Act, not the TV act.

CCTV is something you will hear something about, but I can tell you this: I look forward to the member for Adelaide coming into this place and explaining to the parliament and to the people of South Australia before next year the policy she has just enunciated of having real-time observation of every street through hundreds of TV cameras around the city, with the idea of—I have the words here because they are so interesting—'proactive use to stop trouble before it occurs'.

So, there is going to be a big control room somewhere with hundreds of people watching hundreds of TV screens, and as soon as it looks like something is a bit tricky they are going to get on the phone to somebody, presumably on a pushbike or a horse or something, who is going to run out there and say, 'Stop! Stop, you people! Stop fighting.' That is transparently ludicrous, but just imagine how much it would cost. Imagine how much that would cost! But if that is part of the opposition's policy, to have—I am quoting, exact words—'proactive use to stop trouble before it occurs' using CCTV all over Adelaide, bring it on, and please give us the costings.

Another issue about lighting was raised. Again, this is a completely different issue. Yes, it is something we are talking to the city council about; yes, it is something that we do work on, and you will be hearing more about that. But, again, lighting is not part of the Liquor Licensing Act. The Casino, that old chestnut—members of the opposition, if you are unhappy about the Casino being exempt, you move an amendment; you move it. You move it, and then you explain to the people around there why you are doing it. Do not bring these crazy arguments up here and then not have the ticker to go on with them; you are either serious about it or you are not. So, that is a furphy—a complete furphy.

The member for Adelaide complains about how small the fine is, working on the basis that it is $160. Well, hello, it is $500, if you read the bill. Can I say to the member for Adelaide: if you want to make it $700, you go right ahead. You go right ahead, but do not criticise the government for it being $160 when the bill sitting in front of you, about which you were apparently speaking, says $500. The last question, of course, for the member for Adelaide is: who is more important—these businesses, who want to keep filling drunks up with alcohol as they move in and out of their doors after 3 o'clock, or your residents? That is one you should perhaps ponder for a minute.

What I would like to say, in summary, is that I will be delighted to answer the member for Goyder's questions to the extent that I am able to do so. Secondly, there is nothing in any of the comments anybody has made here, save and except for the amendments being proposed by the member for Goyder (which I will say a few words about in due course) that is in any way attacking the bill. I am hearing from everybody, 'We like the bill, it's fine', but certain people have got a bit of a grumble about the code. Can I just say this: the first we knew of this amendment being put up—the first I knew, anyway—was today. It may have been filed at some earlier time. Let me see when it was filed: 9.9.2013 at 4:44pm. Now, what is today?

Mr Griffiths: That's yesterday.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Today is the 10^th, isn't it? So, it is probably not surprising that, between 4:44pm and this morning, I did not know that this had been filed. What I can tell you is this: since the late night code has been settled, the people in Consumer and Business Services have been out there explaining the new late night code at great expense to them in terms of their time and effort, and I will get the dollars.

What they have been explaining to people is about no bar-hopping. By the way, when does the late night code cut in? It is 1 October and today is 10 September, so roughly 21 days from today. If this opposition amendment were to get up, all of that consultation, discussion and education would be a complete waste of time and we would have to start again, and all of the rest of the bits and pieces in the code—what are we going to make of those? Interesting thoughts, I guess, but back to the point: there is no complaint about the bill, and that is great. I appreciate that.

There is plenty of stuff in the bill that does give the commissioner greater powers to intervene on a one-by-one spot basis. I am glad everyone is happy with that. There is stuff in there that overcomes some of the problems with section 11, which needed to happen because of the absurdity of section 11 which means, for instance, I can only say you cannot pour alcohol down the throat of somebody who is paralytic after 4am. How ridiculous is that

I cannot even do it in a code until after 4am. Why? Because of some crazy amendment that was dropped into this thing in the Legislative Council last time it was here. Hopefully, we will fix that up, and that is great. I am at the point now, Mr Deputy Speaker, where maybe, subject to the honourable members being happy with it, we could go into committee. As normal, I do not wish to go through those three questions and stuff. You can run it however the honourable member wishes.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr GRIFFITHS: We will talk about the issues in your response a little bit later, minister, but I am interested in clause 5. On the top of page 4 where it refers to 'intoxicated', it talks about, 'if a person's speech, balance and coordination or behaviour is noticeably affected and it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the affected speech, balance and coordination or behaviour is a result of consumption of alcohol or some other substance'.

I ask the question: what is it measured against? Particularly, there will be people who have some form of either physical or intellectual disability potentially involved in that. If they are by themselves and they have no-one else to explain their circumstances—it is a rather unusual example, I must admit, but I am just seeking clarification on that—how is a person judged in that way?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a fair enough question. We have checked with the Equal Opportunity Commissioner. It appears there has never been a complaint about this formulation in the past. So, in other words, nobody, so far as we are aware, has ever voiced the view that they have been discriminated against on this. The formulation is not new; this is a long-standing formulation. What is different and what is important about this is that, in the past, the requirement has been that the commissioner (or the person) needed to be satisfied that they were affected by alcohol. The fact is that a number of the people who are in these premises may be working with a cocktail of things going on, some of which might be alcohol, some of which may not be alcohol, and some of them may have virtually no alcohol at all—they might be on bottled water, but they have a whole bunch of other stuff onboard.

What we have tried to do is to blow out this artificial requirement, in effect, that the police officer forms the opinion, 'Yes, it is specifically alcohol that is causing that particular presentation.' We are making it a bit more general now so that if the presentation appears to be induced basically by alcohol or anything else, that is enough.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The CHAIR: This is where your first amendment is.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do have a question first on a subclause and that is before where the amendment would come in. It relates to subclause (1) where it states:

...to impose special requirements in respect to the sale of discounted liquor, or the giving away of liquor, for consumption on a licensed premises between midnight and 7am...

The question posed to me is: what if there is a personal relationship between an owner of a facility and a guest who may be there and they wish to make alcohol available to that person at no cost?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a simple one and it was taught to me by people who worked at the Mile End Hotel many years ago when I was actually an employee there. It is a fantastic little thing and it is actually good PR for the publican. I think the member for Colton would have seen this trick in his time too because I think he has worked as a barman on occasions. What you do is you take a fiver out of your pocket, you buy the drink and you give it to them. It is as simple as that. Instead of just pulling the beer and handing it over, or in the case of what we are talking about, pouring a couple of quarts of Absolut vodka into a jug and handing it over, you actually just buy it and say, 'There you go mate'—problem solvered!

Mr GRIFFITHS: And minister, you honestly believe that it is going to occur every time, do you, because I am a bit surprised by that?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: To be honest with you, I am trading like with like. Your question was in the outer bounds of realistic. It is like them saying to me, 'What about on Mother's Day and you all go to the pub for lunch and the publican, out of the goodness of his heart, wants to buy mum a glass of bubbly?' Now we all know the glass of bubbly is factored into the cost of the pudding and the chips and everything else, so he is hardly giving anything to anybody anyway. I know the member for Goyder would not be responsible for these spurious things because it would be things that were being fed to the member for Goyder by those recalcitrants who continue to want to serve drunks after 3 o'clock.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, actually I am responsible for this one. I like to think it is a legitimate question. I know from my life experiences that I have been in facilities where a relationship exists with an owner of a facility and they have offered me a free drink. This is before being elected to parliament, so I do not have to declare it and all of that sort of stuff.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is right. Now surely you have been involved in those circumstances too. I am only trying to ask questions to clear up issues so there are no repercussions from it further on.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The practicality is if that is all it is, nobody is going to be pinched for that.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, the police and the liquor licensing people have got better things to do than hide in cupboards with binoculars looking at publicans to see whether they are giving anybody a free beer. You would have to be dead unlucky to be there at the time. It is like many things I am sure the member for Goyder has seen in his time here as I have. If you take the thing to its extreme, sure, you can get some odd outcomes, but I am absolutely positive that Consumer and Business Services will not be out there trying to stop publicans giving their friends a drink. To the extent that it is of any assistance, I will actually even write to the commissioner and say, 'Commissioner, for what it's worth, I would prefer you didn't focus on stopping publicans giving their mates a beer.'

Mr GRIFFITHS: With that assurance from the minister, I think we are quite happy to accept that as an answer, then. That has been a really interesting five minutes, I think.

The CHAIR: Would you like to move your amendment now?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Wade-2]

Page 4, after line 12—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) Section 11A—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) However, a code of practice must not contain a provision that would have the effect of preventing or restricting the entry of customers to licensed premises at any time that the licence in respect of the licensed premises authorises trade in liquor.

(2b) A provision of a code of practice that contravenes subsection (2a) is void and of no effect.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will be very brief about this because I have already said some things about this but, as I said, this is contrary to the agreement that I achieved with the AHA. The only people who could be seriously pursuing this are people who are trying to backdoor what was a very lengthy consultation process. It is completely inappropriate to yet again say to the commissioner and the minister of the day that you cannot regulate a whole aspect of liquor licensing because the parliament is going to take it off you.

That is how we got into the silly situation where I cannot stop people getting drunk until 4 o'clock in the morning by saying that you cannot have shooters and you cannot have happy hours. The reason I cannot do that is because of some silly amendment a bit like this that was shoved in the act last time it was here.

Can I just make this really important point: the late-night code is something that a particular venue can apply to have varied in its particular case, and that is the law now. It is basically setting a default position. The default position is no bar hopping after 3am but if we have the gentleman whose name keeps being trotted out who has the place across the road from the Casino, for example, he has repeatedly said to me and others, 'Look, a lot of my business is people knocking off from the Casino and coming across the road early in the morning and wanting to have a drink.'

That is fine. If that is his business model, all he has to do is talk to the commissioner and say, 'Look, commissioner, most of my hours occur here. These people have got a key club membership thing. They're not disruptive; I haven't had fights,' etc., and the commissioner is able to say, 'Fair enough, Strathmore, you are going to be exempted from that particular requirement.' That sits there now. What this amendment would do is make it impossible for those provisions to apply to anybody.

What we are doing with the combination of the legislation and the code is to say that the default position is no bar hopping after 3am, but if you are able to persuade the commissioner that you have a good reason why you should be treated as a one-off case, then you put your case and if you have one like, as I said, the Strathmore quite possibly has—and I am not prejudging that, by the way; that is a matter for the commissioner, not me—you are fine. I oppose the amendment.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I think it is important that I put on the record my recollection of my words during my second reading contribution in relation to Mr Horne and the AHA, which were that essentially we are satisfied with the bill. I am quite sure that I said that. Then I have also mentioned in my second reading contribution a long-held position by the Liberal Party going back to a 2009 discussion on legislation about not supporting a closure.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, this is the position that has been taken and it is based on that long-held belief, not on any comments, submission or backyard conversation with an AHA representative.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Okay. I just want you to ensure that the discussions that you had with the AHA are indeed based on commitments being given and I think I have replicated what you said where you had something which I think was a media précis from Mr Horne that talked about 'not perfect with everything' or something in those sorts of terms and I just wanted to confirm that his words to me, which I said in here, were essentially, 'We are satisfied with the bill.'

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]