LIQUOR LICENSING (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clauses 7 to 20 passed.

Clause 21.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Just some questions here, minister. Clause 21 is about the power of the licensing authority to impose conditions. I understand why it is here, but where a licensing court has made a decision for a condition to exist, I would presume that would have authority above what a commissioner may determine. I am the seeking some clarification on who has the final say. If a commissioner feels that the condition attached should be extended in some way, are they authorised to do so?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Both the commissioner and the court are licensing authorities for the purposes of the act. Either of them can impose a condition. The situation where the commissioner goes in under 43(2)(f), which is part of this amendment, and imposes a condition, variation or suspension in the public interest is operative immediately at the discretion of the commissioner but is reviewable in court.

So, it is not as if any licensee who finds that the commissioner has whacked an additional requirement on them has nowhere to go. They can challenge that by taking it to the court and then, if the court overturns the commissioner's decision, then that is it—it is overturned.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the minister for his answer but, on the basis that an appeal is lodged against a condition put in place by the commissioner as part of a code or any other action, you are able to appeal against that but it is still based upon the time that it takes for the appeals process to be considered by the courts, is it not?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, it is enforced until it is overturned.

Clause passed.

Clauses 22 to 24 passed.

Clause 25.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have a couple of bits of information here which are responsive to questions that the honourable member for Goyder asked earlier in the day. If everyone will bear with me, I will read them out and that may or may not be helpful from people's point of view.

There was a question in relation to the fine for drunken behaviour and whether other amounts were considered. The answer to that is $500 is comparable to New South Wales and Victoria. The current fee is too low, as I have said before, and I think everyone agrees on that. The AHA apparently are strongly in support of the proposal and see it as a tool to reduce bad behaviour by patrons and also as a good countermeasure to the supply-side restrictions.

Another question was: how many people have been charged for serving intoxicated people since 2010? SAPOL are accountable for this, but I understand the numbers are low. I think I explained before that part of that was the complexity about intoxicated people being affected by alcohol. SAPOL's position is being intoxicated is difficult to prove under the current act for the reasons I have just explained, and that is why we are changing the definition of intoxication.

What is expected to be the cost of complying with CCTV elements of the late night code? The answer I have been given is there are significant variables, given that most of the licensees impacted by the code already have some form of CCTV in place, as well as the nature of the system they install. So, the answer is it only falls on people who are trading beyond a certain time and most of them already have something. The question is whether they are already at the right level of complexity.

Are resources being supplied to focus on enforcing the late night code? I am advised that CBS were using their risk-based approach to monitor the late night code. I am advised that there are plans to have operatives in the field to monitor the code once it is in place. As I have said before, these operatives operate quite deeply undercover. You do not really know whether they are there or not and that is part of the magic of it.

What is the number of operations that occur during peak trading and late night times? I am advised that the amount of police and CBS-led investigations vary on a daily basis and they are carried out at various times and locations, which, of course, we do not telegraph because we want to be in the position where our operatives are maximising the element of surprise. The Hindley Street police have a strong presence during peak periods in the CBD.

Another question was: have we considered initiatives such as the time-out bus to help people cool off? The answer is: not specifically. CBS advise that the role of drink marshals in the licensed venues will be to identify intoxicated persons and make arrangements for those people to be cared for by a friend, partner or arrange a suitable conveyance, such as a taxi—that is the whole point of having a drink marshal. Obviously, it is better to manage these people from inside rather than collecting them out on the streets.

CBS also advised that they will encourage licensees to allow intoxicated patrons to cool off, and the Commissioner for Liquor has agreed with the industry and the AHA that turfing people out into the street is not the best outcome, particularly if they are badly under the weather. It is up to licensees—although, can I say, if the licensees are observing responsible service of alcohol rigorously they should not be in that condition in the first place, that is an important point. But, anyway, it is up to the licensees to ensure that plans are in place to monitor and manage intoxicated patrons.

Are the codes of practice disallowable by parliament? The answer to that is yes. In relation to hospitalisations and deaths related to alcohol, the member for Goyder is correct that not all of the 12,500 hospital admissions and 600 deaths attributed to alcohol each year related to that consumed in venues—obviously. While we do not have numbers which break the admissions and deaths specifically down to venues, SAPOL and health figures do show that their level of activity on alcohol related issues peak in the late hours of Friday and Saturday nights, which does tend to suggest there is a correlation between the venues and the problem.

The bottom line is that one king hit or one sexual assault is one too many and putting the debate aside, there are far too many victims and far too many perpetrators having their safety and their lives and their careers put on the line because of excessive alcohol supply and consumption in and around licensed premises.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I thank the minister for providing the answers to the questions raised in the second reading contribution. On clause 25, for the public record, can I ask: the bill refers to the fact that a maximum penalty for a first offence is $20,000 and for a second and subsequent offence for liquor not to be sold or supplied to intoxicated persons; can the minister put on the record what the current expiation fees are?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They are not expiation fees.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The offence fees then. Just for the benefit of the record, what the fees have been; I know what they are proposed to go up to.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The same.

Clause passed.

Clauses 26 and 27 passed.

Clause 28.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Amendment No 1[AG-1]—

Page 8, lines 29 to 34 [clause 28(5)]—Delete subclause (5) and substitute:

(5) Section 112(5)—delete 'each entrance of licensed premises, or part of licensed premises, at any time when access is prohibited to minors under this section or under a condition of the licence' and substitute:

either—

(a) each entrance to the licensed premises; or

(b) each entrance to an area within the licensed premises,

during any time that access to the licensed premises or area is prohibited to minors under this section or under a condition of the licence.

It is amending section 112 to change the reference to 'part of licensed premises' to 'an area of licensed premises' and this reflects the language used in the plans issued by the commissioner's office, so it is just a matter of terminology.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do not think I was aware of the amendment but I understand the reasons for it and indicate the opposition is prepared to support it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 29 to 33 passed.

Clause 34.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, if we can go to page 10 at the very top where it refers to 'the commissioner may, despite the fact that a complaint has not been lodged against a person'. If a complaint has not been lodged but the commissioner determines to use his powers to suspend or impose conditions pending disciplinary action, I am interested in finding out how that is going to work in a practical sense. Why would he take action if no-one lodges a complaint?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the circumstance in which this would be operational would be when the commissioner becomes aware that the police are intending to make a complaint and they are in the process of collecting their material and the commissioner decides that, in order to manage the situation, it is appropriate in the public interest to make these sorts of orders. But, again, if they do make such an order, it is again reviewable, and the licensee is able to challenge the basis for the making of the audit.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I understand that, but I presume it would be on the basis of evidence having been collected by the police, in the example that you provided, and that evidence being shown to the commissioner, which in effect makes it a complaint, doesn't it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that this is in the nature where the commissioner is told by the police, 'Look, we have found a whole bunch of misbehaviour going on at a particular venue and the behaviour is of this nature,' but they have not yet collated all of their material, produced a brief and all that sort of thing. So, this is like where, in effect, the police advise the commissioner, 'Look, there's something so out of the ordinary going on here that we think you need to step in quickly to manage the situation as an interim measure while we get on with it.'

Clause passed.

Clauses 35 and 36 passed.

Clause 37.

Mr GRIFFITHS: One of the representations put to me was in relation to this power to refuse entry or remove intoxicated persons guilty of offensive behaviour, as per clause 34. What has been put to me is that they are proposing that there should be consideration given to making it clear that the person to be removed under this section of the act is intended to be another patron and not an on-duty staff member of the licensee, as in a barman or a barmaid. Similarly, there should be the same opposition in relation to clause 42, which is over the page. Do you feel as though there is a need to put a clear definition in there that it cannot be a staff member? I am a bit intrigued by this question also, but I did say I would ask it for them.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: First, it is clearly not focused on bar staff. Secondly, irrespective of whether a person is bar staff or not, if they manage to fit out the criteria—in effect, they are intoxicated, as now defined, or they are behaving in a way which is offensive to other people—even if they are a bar person and they are doing that, they should get booted out.

Clause passed.

Clause 38.

Mr GRIFFITHS: This is my last question and it is at the top of page 12. I note that the commission must provide a report to the minister on the operation of this section at least once every 12 months. This is my question: is this report presented to the parliament and, if not, is it available publicly somehow for review?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that it is only a requirement that the relevant minister be provided with the report. There is no obligation that it be tabled. My experience of these types of reports and the requirements of tabling goes something like this: the more detailed and comprehensive the report is, the more secure it probably is, if it is given to the minister and the minister decides what elements of the report are released, because it might contain a whole bunch of information. For instance, if the report is completely fulsome and it says, 'We visited X venue five times, we found all these different people who had offended and here are the names of the people and suchlike,' then there might be good reason that it would be considered a little bit harsh for that to be tabled under privilege and those people have no recourse.

On the other hand, if the report is simply in the nature of, 'There were five prosecutions for this and 10 prosecutions for that,' with no particularity, then clearly I do not have any issue about it being provided to the parliament. Because we have not gone into excruciating detail about what the report might be, I have not turned my mind specifically to what we will put in.

For what it's worth, it would be my intention that it would be in the interests of the parliament and the community that some sort of digested information was provided to the parliament and to the public. But, I do point out that the word 'report' can contemplate a great range of things, and I would be wary about imposing an obligation for a report to be tabled in parliament, (a) because if the report is really, really detailed it might produce all sorts of unintended disadvantages to people who may not really be appropriately suffering those this advantages.

The second thing is it might then have the effect of curtailing the particularity in the report (in a way, a sort of self-censoring, if you like), by the commissioner to make sure that whatever they put up is not going to offend anybody, and that then diminishes the value of the report.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I understand that explanation, I suppose. The reason I have actually asked the question is because the clause relates to the power of the commissioner to issue public order and safety notices; therefore, given that that is relevant to the community—I understand that it is historical. By the time any report is submitted to you or any minister, indeed the actions have taken place; I can appreciate that. But, given the fact that it focuses on public order and safety, that is why my question is on some level of public availability of the report, even though it is historical.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a fair enough point, and I am happy to discuss it with the honourable member between the houses. I am also advised that the commissioner has never issued one of these orders in the past, so that is why we are being a little bit careful about this. But, I am very happy to talk to the honourable member between the houses, and if we can satisfy the honourable member about this that would be good.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In the same clause, Mr Chairman, my last question relates to subclause (4), which provides:

Section 128B—after subsection (8) insert:

(9) In legal proceedings, a certificate apparently signed by the Minister certifying an approval of a period for the purposes of subsection (4) is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, proof of the matter certified.

I am wondering if you know what that means, because I have no idea.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I do: it is merely an aid for the court. In other words, it is saying to the court, 'If you've got a certificate that appears to have the minister's signature on it, and it appears to be on letterhead, then unless someone can prove that certificate is rubbish, you can rely on that certificate.'

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (39 to 41), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (18:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.