Liquor Licensing (Prohibition of Certain Liquor) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 September 2015.)

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (17:01): I rise, as the lead speaker for the opposition in this debate on the Liquor Licensing (Prohibition of Certain Liquor) Amendment Bill, to note that this is one of a range of bills the Attorney has brought to the house in his other ministerial capacities, for which the Hon. Rob Lucas in the other place is the relevant shadow minister.

I appreciate the contributions made by the member for Schubert and the member for Hartley as lead speakers on similarly located pieces of legislation this week, where again the Hon. Rob Lucas is the relevant shadow minister. On the opposition's behalf, I will speak briefly and present our position on the bill, but I am certain that the casual reader of Hansard will find a much greater level of detail in the Hon. Rob Lucas' contribution in the other house.

I indicate that the opposition supports this bill. Currently, there is no explicit power under the Liquor Licensing Act for the minister to prohibit the manufacture, sale or supply of undesirable liquor products on general public interest or community welfare grounds. This bill seeks to amend section 131AA of the act to provide a clear ability to exercise this power. In other states, such capacity does exist.

In particular, I believe that Palcohol, or powdered alcohol, is the provocateur that has led the Attorney to consider it necessary that he have the power in his grasp to potentially make regulations. Without wanting to make any comment on any particular substance, I do not feel that it is inappropriate for such a regulatory power to exist. If, as a result of this bill, the minister chooses to exercise their power under the act, they must give manufacturers, importers and distributors of the certain liquor at least seven days to comment on the proposed prohibition.

A temporary notice of 42 days of prohibition can be issued through the Government Gazette. Following this, the government would issue a regulation for a permanent ban, which would obviously be disallowable by either house of parliament; so, in relation to any particular substance the Attorney or the relevant minister may seek to regulate in that way, the house would then have that available to consider. This bill therefore has the support of the opposition, and I am sure that it will pass through the house at a pace dictated only by the length of the Attorney's response.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (17:04): Can I thank the honourable member for Morialta for his brief but highly relevant contribution, and can I say that he sets a shining example for some others who might benefit from studying some of his approaches because it is very impressive indeed.

I also mention briefly that I did, in the context of announcing the liquor licensing review the other day at a media conference, actually acknowledge—although the honourable member may not realise this—the honourable member's agitation in this place of the issue regarding minors being exposed to unsupervised alcohol at domestic party-type situations. That specifically has been included in the material to be the subject of the liquor licensing review. I just wanted the member to know that he may not think I listen to him, but I do. It is in there, and I thank him for his contribution.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (17:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.