LIQUOR LICENSING (SUPPLY TO MINORS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 June 2013.)

Ms BETTISON (Ramsay) (11:06): This government is committed to addressing the harms associated with risky alcohol consumption. I am pleased that the member for Morialta shares this commitment. Target 81 of the South Australian Strategic Plan addresses this point specifically, setting this state a goal to reduce the proportion of South Australians who drink at risky levels by 30 per cent by 2020. The government is seeking to address issues related to the abuse of alcohol and alcohol-related violence across our community in a number of ways.

Recently we have introduced a late-night code to curb issues in and around venues that operate late at night. The code includes measures that require certain late-night venues to use metal detectors, high definition CCTV, and drink marshals, as well as providing an early morning ban on glassware, happy hours, shots and doubles. Under this code, venues will not be able to accept new patrons after 3am. This does not mean they will close; it just means no bar hopping. The government is also undertaking a safe night out campaign to address issues with alcohol-related violence.

In September last year, the Premier announced that government would work in partnership with the Sammy D foundation and other NGOs on a $1 million community education campaign. As part of this initiative, a $200,000 funding agreement between the government and the Sammy D foundation was negotiated for them to provide a youth consultation and questionnaire, and a broader community consultation. More broadly, it is anticipated that the remaining funding will be spent developing and implementing a media campaign to reduce alcohol-related violence in and around entertainment settings.

Lastly, the government has a bill to amend the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 in the parliament. The bill seeks to provide the Commissioner for Liquor with stronger powers to impose conditions on a venue's licence. This is not simply an issue of late-night venues, but seeks to remedy issues across communities in South Australia where access to alcohol has a detrimental impact on people, including minors.

The bill will also increase the amount of expiation notices to $500 for offensive and disorderly behaviour, up from $160. The definition of intoxication has changed to include those who are displaying antisocial behaviour and are under the influence of drugs, which will make it easier to prosecute venues that are breaking the law. Once again, I am pleased that the member for Morialta shares the government's commitment to this area. The government understands the neurological and social risks of underage drinking and supports any practical measures that could reduce the impact of this worrying culture.

Secondary supply of alcohol to minors is a law enforcement issue that is certainly worthy of consideration. The government is, however, concerned that this bill, if it were to pass in its current form, may have some unintended consequences. These concerns were outlined by the member for Mitchell last year when the bill was first introduced, and many still need further consideration.

We have been advised, for instance, that there are a number of concerns over the regulatory impact of the proposed new offences. In particular, there are concerns over the impact these proposed new offences could have on minors and other young people who could, as is common, supply alcohol to younger family members or friends in a social setting. This could be difficult to enforce and lead to a significant increase in youth contact with the criminal justice system.

These proposed new offences could also impact on a person's willingness to take responsibility or to call police or other assistance in times of need at a social event where minors are consuming alcohol. The government has also been advised that the bill, in its current form, could confer police the power to enter private premises without a warrant. It is prudent that these potential issues and others are examined in further detail and solutions found to minimise any unintended consequences.

Whilst we agree with the intent of the bill, it would also be prudent to examine any available evidence from other jurisdictions that relates to the introduction of these new measures. I am advised that similar legislation in other states has not yet been evaluated, and there has been no detailed assessment of the measures' success. That is why, this afternoon, I will give notice to move that the bill be referred to the Social Development Committee of parliament, to consider the bill and its impact in further detail.

We agree that measures to reduce binge drinking are worthy of action—that is why this government has worked so hard to introduce the measures I have previously outlined. However, the amendment proposed by the member for Morialta requires more detailed consideration. It is important that any legislation in relation to the secondary supply of alcohol to minors is as simple and enforceable as possible, not only for law enforcement but also in terms of its practical application by parents and guardians.

It is our duty to make sure that legislative changes do not unnecessarily and unintentionally impact the operations of our law enforcement officers and the everyday activities of South Australian families. So, too, we must make sure that legislation passed by this parliament is evidence based and leads to meaningful and practical results for the people of South Australia. I trust that an examination by the Social Development Committee of the evidence, and of any way to strengthen the bill's enforceability, will lead to better outcomes for South Australian families.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:12): I rise to support the member for Morialta on this bill that he has put forward. I think it is a very responsible approach. I am pleased to hear that the government agrees with the intent of the bill. I understand that the member for Morialta is appreciative of the decision to recommend it to a standing committee, but he will speak more on that himself.

I would like to add, of course, that I hope that the government does not take nearly as long to refer this bill to the standing committee as it has to fulfil its commitment to me and to this house that it would undertake a full, open and frank inquiry of country health by the Social Development Committee. I still wait for that, more than two years after that commitment was given.

With regard to this bill, the issue that I wanted to touch on, because it has been discussed very fully, is that of the ability for parents and families to provide alcohol in a responsible fashion and how that links into the access to the appropriate liquor licence for a function. It happens all over the state that families or schools or associated organisations want to put on functions for some celebration or other. It might be end of year at school, it might be an 18^th birthday, it might be a 21^st birthday—something like that—and, very typically, the organisers want to give alcohol away.

As we would all know, liquor licensing is attached to the supply of alcohol. It is not actually linked to the sale of alcohol, and that is completely appropriate. Whether you want to sell alcohol or whether you want to give it away, you need a liquor licence for some specific function.

I think particularly of rodeos, where rodeos in the north of the state—and there are five of them in the electorate of Stuart—have had an absolutely dreadful time dealing with the liquor licensing commission with regard to getting their licences, but more directly related to this bill is families and I use an example of an 18^th or a 21^st birthday party. They want to invite friends of their son or daughter, typically, to come and have a function at home or in a town hall, as happens very regularly in the part of the state that I live; a town hall or perhaps the footy clubrooms.

They go about their business responsibly and they invite people along—typically other parents are invited as well—and they put in an application to the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner for a licence to supply alcohol to their guests. That application has to be in no less than 21 days before the event for the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner to have enough time to consider it. That is fair and reasonable, but regardless of how far in advance of the event the application is put in, almost always the family trying to organise the event will not get confirmation of the licence back until one or two or three days before the event is due to take place.

Even if they put their application in two months or three months or six months in advance of the event, they are still made to wait until just a couple of days, typically, before the event is to be held before they get their licence back, before they can fully confirm to all of their guests, their family, their son or daughter who is having an 18^th or a 21^st birthday party, that it is actually on.

These are good people trying to do the right thing, trying to get a licence, comply with the law, understand that they will not be supplying alcohol to anybody under 18 and that they will provide reasonable supervision and, as I said, particularly in the country it is very normal for the parents of the birthday person (for lack of a better word) and the friends' parents to be there because it is a strong community event. There are often grandparents, aunts and uncles there, all sorts, but they do not know that they have actually got the licence until the very last minute. That is something that has to change. It is something that absolutely must change.

The same is true for very large organisations trying to organise their events, like rodeos or races or field days; they all have to wait until the last possible minute, regardless of how early they get their application in. The rule that says you have to get an application in no less than 21 days before the event, by definition, proves that the application can be processed in 21 days, so if you give two or three months' notice, why do you still have to wait until the very last moment?

This is an issue that affects events all throughout country South Australia and, I am sure, from time to time in the city as well. It is very closely linked to the member for Morialta's bill because it is about the responsible service of alcohol at events like this to young people who are not your own children; who are guests at this event.

Of course, it is going to be much easier to go about that responsible service better if you know more than a few days in advance that it is actually on. It is about trying to get permission. The member for Morialta is not trying to say that you cannot supply alcohol to your children's friends, he is saying just get the permission of the parents or responsible guardian. How do you go about really trying to make that happen if you cannot even fully confirm that the event is on until a few days beforehand because you do not have your liquor licence until a few days beforehand?

I fully support the member for Morialta. I am pleased that the government has said that it supports the intent of the bill and that it would like to refer this to the Social Development Committee, but I would like to make the very strong point that if the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner could contribute to this issue in this way by saying, 'If you get your licence application in early, we will get you a response back early,' that would also help enormously with this issue.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.