LIQUOR USAGE

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (17:28): By leave, I move my motion in an amended form:

That this house urges the state government, in conjunction with the hospitality industry, to investigate the successful measures implemented in Newcastle, New South Wales, to manage liquor usage.

The Social Development Committee has been conducting a lengthy inquiry into the use and abuse of alcohol, and that report, which will be presented to parliament in the not too distant future, will also touch on this aspect, I am sure.

Recently, I visited Newcastle, which is the sixth largest city in Australia. It had the unenviable reputation of the highest rate of alcohol-fuelled violence in New South Wales, it had the highest rate of drink-driving charges and one of the highest rates of assault on emergency workers. Its CBD was attracting around 20,000 'pre-loaded' younger drinkers every weekend from up to 100 kilometres away. That is a lot of young people.

This concept of pre-loading is not completely new but members may appreciate that, nowadays, in order to avoid the high cost in some of the venues, young people (and some not so young) pre-load. That means they have alcohol before they head off for a night on the town. That has been facilitated by cheaper liquor (relatively speaking, to income) and the availability of takeaway liquor. That has a significance in relation to the behaviour as well because, if you are coming into an area and you are pre-loaded, you are probably in some cases close to being intoxicated.

What happened in Newcastle was largely at the instigation of the police. I met with the police there. They received an award from the Australian Institute of Criminology for their role in bringing about the changes to behaviour and the code of consumption of alcohol there. They were supported by some citizens who were concerned about what was happening in terms of people coming into the CBD and acting inappropriately—the same sort of thing we hear here in relation to Hindley Street. In Newcastle, there are quite a few residences through the mall area that are affected by noise and people urinating in the streets—all of the sort of behaviour that is typically associated with people who have been drinking too much and whose behaviour has been affected.

In Newcastle, there have been some claims that it has devastated their licensed premises, and so on, but that is factually wrong. What happened is that the licensed premises in the CBD now close at 3.30am. It was originally proposed to be 3am but the licensed premises argued for 3.30am, and that is what it is. The lockout is at 1.30am. The concept is the same as here, that is, once you leave licensed premises after 1.30am, you are not allowed back into any licensed premises.

I should point out that the licensees in Newcastle in the CBD have developed their own system to help manage the consumption of alcohol in a sensible way. They are all linked by immediate communication, so if they kick out someone the other licensed premises are notified not to let that person in. Also, of their own volition, they have created a photo ID system so that they know the characters coming into their premises, and that seems to be working very well.

They also have other provisions. The last drinks are 30 minutes before closing time. They ban all shots and bombs after 10pm. There are no mixed drinks with more than 30 millilitres of alcohol after 10pm, and they have other restrictions on, obviously, the number of people in premises, and so on. They also have drink marshals who ensure that after 11 o'clock at night people are not served excessive alcohol. If anyone has been consuming too much, they will not be served anymore.

When you put together this package, one of the key elements is the fact that the police there actively intervene. They have more licensing powers than the police here, but they actively intervene. For the size of that area (I think it is about 400,000 people), it is a very small police establishment. In total, and remembering they have to run shifts around the day, I think it is something like 170 police doing not just this but everything to do with policing. The point made was that a key element is that the police actively intervene: they actively intervene if they see a young, under-age person drunk in a park. I was told by the superintendent that they had recently rung, I think, 43 parents and said, 'Look, your under-age son or daughter is down here, come and get that young person'. If no-one is home, the police will sometimes take that young person home themselves.

They emphasise that the key element is not just having police walking up and down the street, which makes people feel good and gives them a sense of security, but their actively getting involved in this whole process. Outside each licensed premise they have security guards, and I spoke to some of them. Many were teachers doing an extra job; some were student teachers and obviously worked out in the gym, because they were fairly solid lads. Their role was to check people going into any of the licensed premises to make sure they had not had too much to drink already and that they had not taken drugs. They said they were able to pick people who had had too much to drink or had signs of having consumed drugs, and apparently that comes with some training and experience.

Anyone who messes around in or near a licensed premise gets an immediate on-the-spot fine of $550, and that is enforced, no messing around. If you are causing trouble one way or another, there is an immediate on-the-spot fine of $550. What has been the result from this Newcastle model, which has been verified by proper studies, is not mickey mouse, but has been peer reviewed and properly researched by Professor Wiggers and others at the University of Newcastle School of Medicine. There has been a 33 per cent fall in alcohol-related, non-domestic assaults, which is a 14-year low.

One of the nightclubs in Newcastle had the highest incidence of violence of any licensed premises in New South Wales (not something to be proud of). There has been a 50 per cent reduction in night-time street crime; a 26 per cent reduction in related hospital emergency admissions; a significant reduction in pre-loading, with young people going to these venues earlier rather than later; and, a reduction in the average levels of binge drinking.

The modest reduction in late trading hours has not only reduced alcohol-related harm but created a safer and more diverse night-time economy with demonstrated net economic benefits. Contrary to claims that it would devastate the licensed premises, there are actually more now than before this program started, which was five years ago. I met with one of the nightclub licensees, an ex-Rugby League player, who owns a couple of the biggest nightclubs, and he said that their business has not suffered at all. In fact, there are some benefits in having shorter trading hours in terms of the cost of staff, and so on.

The City of Newcastle has been very supportive and installed the electronic toilets at the end of the mall near one of the nightclub areas because of the problem of people, usually men, urinating in the street. They put in one of these electronic toilets, which are not cheap—I think it cost something of the order of $300,000—and it helped address that issue. That is one of the issues raised here in Hindley Street—lack of public toilet facilities late at night that are safe and clean. These electronic ones are self-cleaning and available any time, day or night, and people using them know it will be clean and that they will be safe, and that has been an important element in terms of deterring people from the antisocial behaviour of urinating in public.

There are various reports on the Newcastle experience, and now that model is being replicated to some extent in King's Cross, because it does work. One of the points that was indicated was that you have to introduce it as a package. You need a range of measures with the police actively involved and you need, clearly, the cooperation of all the licensees. As I indicated, they have introduced at their own expense a photographic ID system which seems to work very well.

There are a couple of things that came out of my visit there. I had not thought before—and it does not relate just to licensed premises at night—about the connection between an increase in domestic violence and the ready availability of takeaway liquor, largely because people do not want to be caught drink-driving. There does not seem to be any detailed study on that, but what can happen is that, instead of people drinking to excess in a licensed premises and belting up someone there, they buy cheap, takeaway liquor and go home and belt up their partner or children.

I cannot find any statistical data in relation to that, but I think it is something we should be mindful of in terms of using alcohol appropriately and not, as a result of one action—which is laudable: to clamp down on drink-driving—create another problem and displace the violence to the home environment, where it is normally the female member and the children who suffer.

I would urge members to have a look at the information. The City of Newcastle has a publication called Safe Newcastle: Alcohol Management Strategy for the City of Newcastle 2010-2013. When you get a council that is supportive, when you get licensees who are supportive and when you get the police and citizens actively involved, then you end up with a great result which is better for licensees, better for the patrons and better for the wider community, and there are fewer instances of assault and violence inflicted on people that result in them being admitted to hospital.

I saw someone quoted recently who is involved in the reconstruction of faces and so on—I think the term is incorrect; they are called plastic surgeons—who said that he was sick to death of having to repair people's faces and heads after they have been assaulted or after someone has inflicted terrible injuries on them. I would urge the government here and the opposition, in terms of having a look at their liquor management strategy, to closely examine the successful program in Newcastle.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:43): I am grateful to the member for Fisher for agreeing to a slight amendment to his motion so that instead of 'adopt' it is 'investigate' and, on that basis, I confirm that the opposition supports it. I do not profess to know anywhere near as much about the Newcastle situation as the member for Fisher, but I do respect that the majority of the members of the Social Development Committee went and visited as part of an undertaking of an investigation they are doing.

He has provided the house with some very detailed information about what they have done there in response to what the real concern of the community was. With the consumer and business services shadow portfolio, liquor licensing has actually become a part of my life a bit in recent months. With the late-night trading code and everything—

The Hon. R.B. Such: Been to a lot of pubs, have you?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, no; with the late-night trading code, the discussion with the operators has highlighted to me that what South Australia currently has is a result of a lot of negotiation and compromise on what some would like, what others would like and what those who use the entertainment precinct would like, but it is part of the way forward.

I think, though, that the Newcastle experiment actually demonstrates to all of us where there is still a chance for investigation to occur so we can get some best practice in place, but we can ensure that we provide a safe entertainment venue and that is what it is all meant to be. I do respect the Hon. John Rau, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, when he talks about that, and I agree entirely with it. We want to have venues that are fun for people and we want to have venues that attract people, but we have to have venues that are financially viable. Finding that balance is often quite hard.

From some of the research I have done on the Newcastle situation, it appears to me that under the former New South Wales government a trial to restrict alcohol availability was undertaken in Newcastle about five years ago. It was dubbed the 'Newcastle solution.' The member for Fisher has certainly confirmed that the lockout situation occurs from 1.30. Closing time has been brought forward, previously from 5am back to 3.30am. However, with that came a 37 per cent decrease in late-night assaults and a 26 per cent decrease in emergency department admissions in the area. From discussions I have had with those who work in the emergency areas in Adelaide hospitals, that is an important initiative we need to be striving for as well.

It was reported in September of this year by Deakin University Professor Peter Miller, who has studied the Newcastle liquor laws, that the tough restrictions introduced five years ago did have an immediate effect. Professor Miller has no doubt that the early closing times, lockouts and drinking restrictions in Newcastle are working. He states:

It had a substantial effect in terms of fairly immediate results for reductions in assaults and emergency attendances.

It is interesting that the Attorney, when previously talking about liquor licensing in South Australia, as part of his second reading contribution, said, 'There are 12,500 hospital admissions and 600 deaths attributed to alcohol in South Australia per year.' Recent Australian research indicates that it is estimated that 53 per cent of injured persons presenting to hospital emergency departments between the hours of 10pm and 7am had consumed alcohol in the six hours before that, and South Australia Police data indicates that in 2008-09 in the Adelaide CBD area 58 per cent of victim-reported crime was related to alcohol.

As I have previously said in this chamber, my own son was one of those people who was assaulted. He was not seriously injured, but someone with him was knocked out. My son has, unfortunately, had to live with that although he has not suffered long-term from it. I can reflect on the terrible king hit cases that we have all read about. Sydney has had some shocking examples in recent times and, quite rightly, the community wants to see that prevented from ever occurring again. However, it is linked to alcohol consumption.

In Newcastle, as I understand it, because of the changes implemented, it has resulted in people going to the entertainment venues a bit earlier than they otherwise might have done. They are drinking at the venues and not pre-loading themselves before they go out, and that is helping to control things.

On the basis that this is a notice of motion that says that we investigate and, therefore, I think it helps pursue best practice options, the opposition supports it. We hope that there is an opportunity in future times, as the hospitality industry and the community manage to mature on this, that we do reach a situation that ensures that there is absolute safety for all people who visit entertainment venues.

None of us wants to see anybody get hurt. I think it is beholden on parliament to look at opportunities to see what other areas are doing that are considered to be some of the best practice examples and to try to bring in opportunities to provide our communities with a much safer environment. We support the motion and hope that the government is prepared to indicate its support for it, too, because I think it is a good step.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.