Bills

Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (12:08): I would also like to acknowledge students from Woodcroft College who are in the gallery today. I have, in fact, had the privilege and pleasure of having a child at Woodcroft College, and I know that the quality of the education you are getting is outstanding.

I rise today to speak in support of the Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill 2017. The bill is designed to reduce red tape for new and existing liquor licensees, to increase the efficiency in the regulation of liquor and to enhance community safety through the promotion of a safe drinking culture. As a caveat, I would say that this is not the only method we can use to promote a safe drinking culture, of course, and I will talk a little bit about that in a moment. The reforms in this legislation include:

removing the restrictions on the sale of liquor on Sundays, Christmas Day, Good Friday, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day;

introducing an automatic extension for trading on New Year's Eve until 2am on New Year's Day;

removing requirements for designated areas within licensed premises;

removing the obligation for meals from some new classes of licences;

introducing a portfolio of notifications in relation to the fit and proper assessment for members of a committee of management of a club; and

removing restrictions in relation to the sharing of licensed premises.

The aims are important and I commend them. What I will focus on in my speech today is the issue of the secondary supply of liquor to minors.

As members in this place would be aware, I have been through the experience of losing a child as a consequence of behaviours associated with under-age drinking. My son was 17½ at the time that he lost his life. He was a very tall, mature young man. He was heading towards adulthood at a rapid rate. At that age, young men do tend to start drinking and experimenting with alcohol. Many would argue that their brains are not ready to make some decisions even without the effects of alcohol, so with the effects of alcohol decision-making is clearly impaired to a greater degree.

In summary of the events leading up to my son losing his life, he played football that day and was invited to a house party with his friends. The party was being hosted in a private residence, which certainly puts a burden of responsibility upon the owners of the house and it did in this case. The owners of this house were absolutely committed and fabulous parents and put in place some measures that they felt would improve the safety of the people attending that night, including placing some other young adults on the door to check to make sure that only people invited were coming in. They put a degree of responsibility upon their daughter whose birthday party it was.

There was a sense of fun and excitement that night and my son, along with his friends, had alcohol in his possession. I believe there was about a carton of beer between four or five young men, so it would have amounted to four or five drinks each that night. Of course, there were varying degrees of alcohol being drunk by a number of people at that party, so there were clearly some very intoxicated people.

The events of the night ensued where some aggression and fights broke out between people who did not know each other so well. As alcohol affects people's capacity to control their behaviours, it escalated and a fight broke out and rolled out into the street. My son was hit once only. The result was a combination of the location of that punch and the fact that he had had three or four drinks and was relaxed. It was a similar injury to that which cost Phil Hughes his life—a ruptured artery in the neck.

Following that, obviously, I have spent many, many hours trying to work out why that happens. You think that there has to be a reason for such awful things, but sometimes there is just no good reason for it to happen and it is a combination of a whole range of actions that lead to such terrible consequences, including decision-making, a lack of understanding of the consequences of your actions and a lack of understanding around the laws and what you can do to protect people who come into your home.

Finding no decent justification for such a horrible thing—the worst thing ever in my life—I found that under-age drinking is in fact a very complex problem, as is the violence associated with it. A number of contributing factors lead to it, which means we have to absorb a raft of measures into our community to prevent this from happening. This ongoing review of liquor licensing, the ongoing setting of laws around alcohol and supply, contributes to us managing what is an extremely complex social challenge today, that is, under-age drinking.

It is great news that surveys such as Mission Australia's commissioned youth survey show us that the vast majority of kids do not drink. In fact, I think the number is something like 75 per cent of young people who completed the last survey—aged between 12 and 17, and it would be skewed in that the younger kids would say that they are not drinking—had not even tried alcohol. That is great news, but along with that there are 25 per cent who are clearly drinking under-age. So, we need to nurture a culture of communication and cooperation between the community, young people, educators and families that supports clarity around how to best support young people transitioning to adulthood to make safe choices around alcohol, drugs and other behaviours.

We want parents to be sure about the laws that are in place. We do not want confusion: we want them to understand what they can do to help their kids make safe and informed choices. Education, of course, is the key to that, and we have teachers, health workers, community workers and legal officers in this place who say we must educate our kids and our families. We do not want to drive under-age drinking underground. It is important that we make laws that are enforceable and practical in terms of the community and how families can work together to make decisions and be safe.

We do not want kids drinking in parks; we do not want them drinking in public spaces. We do not want kids or young adults drinking to an extent where they are unwell and not getting the help they need. Of course, it is okay for people in families to make rules such as, 'There is no alcohol in our house for people who are not 18.' It is okay to make those rules. There is a diverse range of families in our community, and we have to have agile legislation that allows for decisions to be made that are appropriate for every family. We need a structure that allows for communication and no fear of punitive measures, which are obviously going to be difficult to enforce and which also make no sense to the people they are given to.

We have an obligation to set legislation that is clear. Young people are hardwired to experiment and take risk. We want parents to have a broad range of strategies available to them to keep their kids and their circle of friends safe. What are our expectations of each other in the community? We have to be clear about that. Do we have to legislate to ensure the level of decency where one parent has to inform another parent that there will be alcohol permitted at a party? What is the expectation? I think these are conversations that have to happen.

I am not sure that legislating it is a must and the way to go. I think it is more about community education, but it is an important matter that we need to discuss. We also need to put on the table that parents should be encouraged to have that conversation with other parents, to provide information to the other family such as, 'Yes, there is going to be alcohol. Your young person will perhaps need to have consent to come and drink alcohol or bring alcohol into our house.' Again, it is education, it is workshops and it is how we talk as a community and develop this level of trust.

I am really concerned about things like formal afterparties. There is this trend that we are seeing towards pop-up, warehouse-style parties that are being moved out of the home into a warehouse. People are saying, 'We are not going to have this happening in our house, but it is going to be happening in a warehouse,' and security guards are used. I saw a story about it on the weekend and it is really concerning.

I heard a statement by a school linked to it. Obviously, they are making a professional external public comment that these things that happen on the weekend are not the responsibility of the school. Yes, it is the responsibility of the parents and community to educate but, honestly, the school would know that this reflects on the school community as a whole. We need to encourage parents and schools to seek that type of education and support.

I know schools now that insist on this type of education before kids can pick up their formal tickets. Last night, Henley High School had an education session for their school community where 400 people attended. They recognise that very notion that, 'You have to get educated and you need to be informed to be safe at our formal.' Of course, I spruik the programs delivered by the Sammy D Foundation. I was one of the people who did the research into and the development of the programs. I believe in the programs. I will never give up supporting that work in my son's name. It is the reason I am here.

I also support other fantastic work being done in this space such as that of Encounter Youth in the area of schoolies, or of the amazing Professor Alison Hutton of Flinders University. She is now a professor at the University of Newcastle, New South Wales. Her work revolves around young people and health promotion and harm minimisation. The philosophy underpinning her work is that by involving youth in the decisions about their behaviour and life choices, they will feel supported and safe in the choices that can impact on their health and behaviour.

Alison works with a lot of other non-government organisations that I have mentioned just now, including St John Ambulance Australia. She has published, and she has done work on schoolies and outdoor music festivals about creating safe and supportive environments for young people in their health care. Alison is the president on the board of the Association for the Wellbeing of Children in Healthcare, which is a not-for-profit organisation advocating for the rights of children, and she has been highly commended for her work in schoolies, also receiving a South Australian Safe Communities Award. On Friday night, I was at the SA Nursing and Midwifery Excellence Awards, and she received an award for innovation in clinical research.

This is about empowering young people to be involved in that decision-making process. The Woodcroft College students who are in the gallery are going to be involved in that as they move on through school, which is fantastic. We rightly try to direct more resources into the volatile and highly dangerous area of the ice epidemic. The volatility of that drug, the power of that drug and the way it can change your life so terribly, so negatively, is terrifying, but we cannot take our eyes off the fact that one of the biggest social problems that we have is caused by alcohol, which is a legal drug.

I move on now to finish off talking about the legislation and the review of the liquor licensing laws by former Supreme Court justice, Tim Anderson, who recommended to adopt legislation for the secondary supply of liquor to minors, particularly in relation to residential premises, and strengthen the regulation of minors consuming liquor and adults supplying liquor at high-risk afterparties or events. The government accepted the recommendation. There is a demonstrated problem with secondary supply to minors at schoolies-type events and formals. This is a serious public safety issue.

In addition to the provisions relating to the sale or supply of liquor to minors on licensed premises, the bill proposes to tighten the laws in relation to the supply of liquor to minors in other places through proposed new section 110A. Under the proposed new laws, the supply of liquor to a minor, and the consumption or possession of liquor by a minor, will be an offence unless it is a gratuitous supply occurring in a prescribed place and under certain conditions. There are also other changes proposed in the bill aimed at strengthening the regulation in relation to under-age drinking, which are consistent with the government's response to the liquor licensing review by Mr Anderson.

The bill makes offences in relation to the sale and supply of liquor to minors on licensed premises subject to a fine. The bill also provides for a minors noncompliance register, which would identify a licensee who has been guilty of an offence involving the unlawful sale or supply of liquor to a minor. I certainly would like to know if there are venues that are not being responsible in terms of following this up. I take on board what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was talking about in relation to the small number of people who are arrested, fined or charged under certain acts, and we need to do better.

The bill also allows for the seizure of false or fraudulent evidence or age documents. The use of fake IDs can be tempting for young people in terms of their being able to access and enter clubs and licensed premises. They are easily available in this digital age. Allowing the seizure of the fake documents ensures that the minors do not do what we call bar hopping. Once they are ejected from a venue or not allowed to enter a venue because of the presentation of a fake ID, they will be unable to head down the road to the next bar and continue to engage in the unsafe use of alcohol.

This review has been necessary. Whilst making the system more streamlined, it will go a long way to help protect our young people from dangerous drinking practices. It is an ongoing piece of work. This will not do it in isolation but along with supportive, effective and engaging community education programs. Our future is one in which lives are saved if we build this all together. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (12:26): It is with some pleasure that I rise to talk about in particular the secondary supply of alcohol aspects of this bill. In terms of the remainder of the bill, I note and endorse the comments of the deputy leader in which she set out the opposition's position—mostly endorsing the bill with some amendments.

In relation to secondary supply of alcohol to minors, I appreciate the passion brought by the member for Fisher; however, I note that if there had been such passion and interest on the part of any other member of the government over the last seven years, then secondary supply of alcohol legislation would have been supported in 2011 when I brought it to this parliament six years ago, and when I subsequently presented it two further times. The minister for health at the time, John Hill of the Labor Party, was scathing in his appraisal of the suggestion, making passive-aggressive comments about whether I should be polling my electorate.

This is an issue that was brought to me by constituents. The impact of excessive alcohol use by teenagers is an issue that I had observed in my own personal life prior to that. Not all of them are going to receive damage, but many of them do. Extraordinary damage can be wrought on young lives by the use of alcohol prior to the development of the brain of a teenager. There is the increased likelihood of susceptibility to alcoholism as a chronic condition, the increased danger of falling prey to brain damage, anxiety and depression, and the injuries that can come from alcohol use at a young age are disproportionately excessive in minors.

The culture of drinking in our community needs to be addressed. Secondary supply of alcohol laws are not a golden bullet. They are not going to fix the problem just like that, but they are a key ingredient in the remedy that has been missing from South Australia and that every other state has now pursued. Even Western Australia in the last few years has pursued it. When I introduced this legislation in 2011, it was South Australia and Western Australia; now it is just South Australia.

I am glad that the member for Playford agreed—I think on our third go—and while the government was not going to support the bill in 2014, they referred it to a committee for consideration. The Attorney-General subsequently included secondary supply of alcohol measures in the terms of reference for the Anderson review, for which I am also grateful on behalf of the community, who have been very concerned about this. There have been thousands of signatures on petitions presented to this parliament and hundreds of emails from parents across South Australia and from members of school councils.

The secondary supply of alcohol law measures are critical because they give parents that opportunity to say no to their child when their child goes to them saying, 'Look, I need to take some alcohol to this party; everyone else is doing it.' When this legislation is passed, parents will now have the opportunity to say, 'No, I am not going to give you a sixpack of UDLs. I am not going to give you a sixpack of beer because it is against the law.' Under the proposals which I brought to the parliament six years ago, and which the member for Heysen and subsequently the member for Dunstan, as leaders of the opposition, took to the election, parents had the opportunity to introduce alcohol to their children in their own time and in a way that was suitable for their families.

But the question must be asked—and it is the question I have been asking for six years and I am pleased that the government has finally come on board to understand this—why should any adult be able to give alcohol to a child without even the knowledge or the permission of their parents? This legislation resolves that question in the statement: they should not be able to. Parents must be able to have the opportunity to identify this.

Of course, there are complexities with the policing and management of this but, as a statement of principle, we have laws far harder to police on the statute book and I am pleased that the government has finally come on board—six years late—with this recommendation. We understand how the teenage brain works more than we ever have before.

I want to particularly identify some thanks to people who have worked very hard for this legislation and who have brought it to fore for the public. When I first presented this, my scientific support was particularly based on the work by Professor Ian Hickie, Australian Medical Research Fellow of the Brain and Mind Research Institute of the University of Sydney.

I remember that a number of members of parliament—the member for Ashford, the Deputy Leader and the Hon. Tammy Franks—came to a session I ran in this house prior to the second time that we presented the bill. It was supported by Professor Paul Dillon, by the head of Pembroke School and by Professor Michael Baigent of Flinders University, who were able to present on this. Hundreds of members of the community collected signatures on petitions and spoke to their school councils and spoke to members of parliament.

This is not a golden bullet, but it will help to change the drinking culture. It will help parents who want to have some level of opportunity to introduce alcohol to their children in their time and at a time that is appropriate for their families, because we know that every year that the introduction of alcohol can be delayed reduces the risk of some of those extraordinarily bad consequences I spoke of earlier. With the amendments that the opposition is proposing on other aspects of the bill, I lend my support to the bill.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (12:32): I rise to make a couple of brief points on the Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill 2017. I congratulate the government on appointing the Hon. Tim Anderson QC to conduct the review, dated 29 June 2016, including some 129 recommendations. The bill is designed to reduce red tape for new and existing licences in the liquor supply market, increase efficiency in the regulation of liquor licensing in this state and enhance measures for safe drinking, including the enforcement of offences under the act.

In relation to the reduction of red tape, there will be the removal of restrictions on the sale of liquor on Sundays, Christmas Day, Good Friday, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day; the introduction of an automatic extension for trading on New Year's Eve until 2am on New Year's Day; the removal of a requirement for designated areas within licensed premises; the removal of the obligation for meals for some new classes of licences; the introduction of a process of notifications in relation to the fit and proper assessment for members of a committee of management of a club; and the removal of restrictions in relation to the sharing of licensed premises.

Having been a restaurant owner for a couple of years back in early 2000 and 2001, many of those issues that are sought to be addressed through this bill I can relate to personally. I commend the government for taking steps to streamline and cut red tape because many seem archaic and also time-consuming when you are trying to run a business with a large number of staff and other complexities going on at the time.

In terms of increasing efficiency, the streamlining of classes of licences will reduce the number of classes. I think that is a very good thing. I remember driving to Adelaide on numerous occasions because we had a three-tiered restaurant and wanted the bottom tier to have an entertainment capacity. Sitting down in front of the commissioner, with many of the opponents of that, including the Hotels Association, it struck me as peculiar that the protectionism coming in at that time made it very difficult for younger people entering the market to provide a venue where entertainment could be provided.

The issue I have with the bill that I certainly could not see myself supporting is the proposed increase in liquor licence fees. I give the example of the South Eastern Hotel in Mount Gambier, whose fee will go from $2,754 up to $7,000—a $4,246 increase per annum. In fact, look at the benefit that I believe hotels provide to people, predominantly front bars, and men and mental health. I see time and time again the strong bonds that can be created in terms of men coming in and talking about their day, their issues, their stresses, yet I see a continual increase in fees, a disincentive for hotels to operate profitably, a squeezing out of the market.

I was reading the Australian Hotels Association's response to the proposed changes, and I believe it was Ian Horne who wrote a couple of very good paragraphs. He said:

South Australia is faced with an economic climate of high unemployment, high and rapidly escalating electricity costs, power insecurity and a stagnant population growth. An additional imposition of massive and baseless liquor licence fees will further restrict businesses' ability to survive, to financially support related industries such as premium wine and food and live music, and will simply send them the message that they are seen by government as nothing more than cash cows.

He continued:

The South Australian hotel industry contributes enormously to the state's economic wellbeing. Any measure which impacts the industry by even as little as 5 per cent will affect jobs. Pulling hundreds of thousands of dollars out of [the industry] will affect jobs and related industries.

That is the part I have a major issue with in this bill, the huge increase in fees. In fact, I would like to see a reduction in fees and people being encouraged to participate in a socially responsible way, at a front bar talking with their mates, getting out into the community instead of some people retreating to their residence and—if they live alone or have no-one else to talk to—not being able to afford the opportunities that a front bar can provide. I have seen it firsthand on many, many occasions.

In the regional areas, it is often said that if you want to get business done there are two places to go: one is the front bar of the local hotel and the other is the golf club. My golf is pretty ordinary, and that might be to do with the amount of time I spend in the front bar of the pub, I do not know, but I do see a wide range of wonderful community people in our venues, and I think they are the backbone of our communities, salt-of-the-earth type people.

The areas that I think really do need some further attention and some amendments to be put in place are a three-hour period when trade is not permitted, between 3am and 8am. Anderson's recommendation No. 15 states:

It is a mandatory condition of a licence that licenced premises...be closed for a minimum of three continuous hours between 3.00am and 9.00am.

Alternatively, the premises could remain open for those three hours but not sell liquor.

The government accepted this recommendation in part by drafting new section 44A. This restricts trade between 3am and 8am for a three-hour period. The government claims that up to 9am is not night trade, but this is to effectively require no alcohol sales after 5am rather than 6am, if you do your maths. The Late Night Venue Association raises this as a key concern for their members and considers that, if there is to be a three-hour break rule, they should be able to set the times.

I have talked about the annual licence fees, and that is something that is of grave concern to me and my constituents in the South-East. The third point is the register of licensees. Anderson's recommendation No. 95 is that the government:

Legislate to require that offences relating to the sale of liquor to minors are strict liability offences with offending licensees recorded in a register and the details published on the CBS website.

The government has accepted this recommendation and inserts section 135A into the bill to publish the names of certain licensees on the CBS website who have been convicted of an offence against this act. These details will be removed after five years from the date of conviction. The AHA strongly opposes this blacklist, claiming that the licensee has already been penalised and, further, if they have taken reasonable steps to remedy the problem, i.e., terminate the employee responsible or implement new policies, they should not be penalised further.

With those final remarks, we support the Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill with some reservations over those amendments. However, I put on the record that I strongly oppose the annual licence fees; in fact, I would like to see the government do that in reverse and lower the fees so that the benefits of the hotel industry can be enjoyed by more.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (12:42): I will make just a few comments. I will hold myself to the area of the small bars, an area of changes to the licensing system that were introduced a couple of years ago, to give my perspective and support of that particular area. I think they have been particularly successful. They have added a level of character to the CBD area that was not previously there.

It was not that long ago that, when my relatives and friends from interstate came to town, I would be scratching my head trying to work out what I was going to do with them. Part of the reason that I am now scratching my head is that I am wondering how I am going to fit it all in when the same relatives and friends come over because of the CBD. My rellies are Kenyons, they are drinkers, so we are able to go around to a few of the bars, which I have certainly found have added something to the city and made it a much more interesting place.

I have particularly enjoyed the proliferation of good whisky that is now available. Some of those bars that have specialised in whiskys have been enjoyable. Previously, when I was younger, I might have spent $100 drinking a very large number of cheap whiskys, whereas I now find myself spending a similar amount on two, three or four whiskys of much higher quality. I wake up feeling better the next day and I have a much more enjoyable time.

I have very much enjoyed the emergence of these bars—but it is not all about me. They have also made a reasonable contribution to the economy, and I have seen some interesting statistics. There have been 106 applications for premises of this type. Eighty-two venue licences are currently active and a further 11 are being assessed as we speak.

The number of licences being surrendered is very small; that is, about four or five licences have been surrendered, which says that they tend to be successful and that they are, on the whole, ongoing. This is good because it means they are profitable and are employing people. In fact, the report released in 2015 estimated that, on average, each venue is responsible for 12 direct jobs and an estimated $1 million contribution to the state's gross state product (GSP) per venue. The estimate in 2015, from Renewal SA, was that small venue licences had generated an estimated 728 jobs and $49.3 million in economic activity.

With 82 venues now in existence and a further six applications currently being considered, calculations would indicate that a total of close to 1,000 direct jobs are being created just by the small venue licences and well over $70 million, you would think, in terms of GSP contributions. That is an excellent contribution from what was a comparatively small legislative change, but it was enough to really change the way that people are able to enjoy the CBD.

I notice there were some suggestions that the small venues could be widened to areas outside the CBD. That would certainly have my support. I think there are certain areas of the state that would benefit from having these licences available. For instance, I think the very beautiful City of Port Lincoln would be an ideal location for some of these things and I think the lovely City of Mount Gambier would be another place where they would have an impact and add a bit to the character. Obviously, they grew from country towns, so a pub there is an important part of life, but they are also sophisticated cities in their own right. A smaller offering or a different offering would probably go down very well in those areas. I think Mount Gambier, in particular, is trying to increase its university population of young people, who are ideal candidates for this sort of bar.

There are some suburbs that would also do well from an expansion. For instance, in the historic area of Tea Tree Gully in my electorate of Newland it would be useful. Perhaps some areas like The Parade or some tourist areas like Glenelg may be considered. There are certainly areas where in due course, and with appropriate consideration, I would support the expansion, should that ever happen. With that, I will cease my contribution and commend the bill to the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:47): This bill is incredibly important, and I take liquor licensing very seriously. I listened to the deputy leader's contribution as our lead speaker and, as always, she covered the issues extremely well. I will not go back over all of those things, other than to say that I support her and our team's position.

I would like to put on the record my appreciation of the member for Morialta, who, for as long as he and I have been in parliament (since 2010), has been a very strong advocate within our party room to ensure that the Liberal opposition is very well aware of the issues with regard to the impact of alcohol upon young people. It is something he takes very seriously. I know he will always have that on his mind throughout his parliamentary career and will be working hard to try to protect young people. As is so often the case, young people need protection from things about which they are not yet fully educated. I do not want to be patronising in that way, but it is just a fact. He is a leader among us on that issue.

Liquor licensing laws are incredibly important for a whole range of reasons. We are talking about a massively important part of our economy. A massive contribution to gross state product comes through businesses directly and indirectly connected to the production or the sale of alcohol, from high-quality malting barley all the way through to hospitality outlets, small pubs in the country, small bars in the city, the Casino, or wherever it happens to be, and it is very important for that reason and very important for many other reasons as well, including, of course, the fact that they are an important part of our social fabric.

I know there are people out there who think, 'Look, leave us alone. Let us do whatever we want to do. I'm responsible. Go and chase some real criminals,' all the way through to people who say, 'Nobody should ever consume alcohol. It is unnecessary and we should ban it.' They are the extremes. I am sure all of us in this parliament are in between those two extremes. The government, whether it is Liberal or Labor, has a tough job to try to lead debate and lawmaking in that way. The opposition takes our responsibility to contribute to that task extremely seriously.

Unlike the member for Newland's experience, who quite understandably contributed to this debate from a consumer's perspective, while I am quite happily a moderate consumer of alcohol, my experience is far more from the other side of the business. I started my working life connected to alcohol as a bouncer in a pub in inner city Toronto when I was 18. It was a place called the Brunswick Beer Hall. It was a massive place, maybe a bit smaller than a basketball court. It had rows and rows of tables and chairs—small, round tables and four chairs at each table—and there might have been 100 of them. The norm was to order a round tray of beer that was two feet or more wide and held 30 glasses of beer.

The laws in Ontario at the time were such that you were not allowed to serve lots of beer all at once unless it came in lots of small glasses, so people would buy a tray of 30 glasses and sit there. I was one of about 10 bouncers who worked there. Many of them were much bigger than me, and I can tell you that we were needed. I was very glad to be a member of 10 rather than be there on my own.

We go from that, which today we would all consider to be completely outrageous and irresponsible service of alcohol, all the way through to fine dining—not that I have been involved in that necessarily. People are apparently extremely knowledgeable about what they are eating and drinking and they take it very seriously. Hopefully, they do not consume too much. There are these areas and myriad others in between.

I have been a licensee at four different establishments. Two of them had pokies as well. Think of a place like Marla, where one of the conditions of the liquor licence was that you were not allowed to sell takeaway alcohol to anybody who was coming from or going to the APY lands. Every single person who went through that establishment who wanted to buy takeaway alcohol had to sign a form and state their name and address and state that they were not going to or coming from the APY lands. While that was at the request of the local Aboriginal community, it was not only Aboriginal people who were wrapped up in that; everybody was wrapped up in that. There were many non-Aboriginal people who caused grief in that establishment with regard to the irresponsible consumption of alcohol.

It is a complicated business and we need different rules that work in different places in different ways, and of course they need to improve over time. My greatest concern with regard to liquor licensing, which has not been covered already by the deputy leader, is the impact upon small rural and outback community events. They are very often genuine one-offs or they are one-offs in the sense that they are annual. They occur regularly but a new licence is required each time.

One example would be rodeos. There are five in the electorate of Stuart. They are extraordinarily important community events. Anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 people attend them. I would say quite openly that if there were 1,000 to 3,000 people coming from all over the countryside to attend any event for fun, even if zero alcohol were involved, unfortunately, there would very likely still be some antisocial behaviour. That is just how it is. So, to blame the presence of alcohol is naive. To say that alcohol would not contribute to it at all would also be naive.

My point is that these volunteer organisations raise anywhere between $5,000 and $30,000 per event, which all goes back into the local community. It is all farmed back into the local community for very positive service delivery, which would not otherwise happen if it was left to the government to provide. It goes back into the bowls club, the senior citizens club, the football club, the netball club, the cricket club, the primary school, the kindergarten, the CFS—whoever it happens to be. In one case, those funds support a small community general store that cannot survive on its own. One of the rodeos significantly contributes financially to that store every year so that that store can still be there, in what would otherwise be an unprofitable way, supporting and serving the local community.

I am not suggesting that those people need an easy ride or that the liquor service should be slack in these situations, but I am well aware of situations where volunteer organisations which apply for liquor licences, and which are personally responsible for overseeing the service of the alcohol, are treated poorly. They are definitely treated poorly by the liquor gambling commission office in Adelaide which considers them, I suspect, as just another bit of administration that they have to deal with, and often they do not get the support they deserve. That is just one example.

Another example is of a well-known local farming family—not poor, not rich—many members of the family in the community who contribute enormously. When they were trying to organise a 21^st birthday party they did the right thing. They wanted to get a liquor licence because they were going to be serving alcohol to the guests—obviously, only the guests over 18—and they understood that they needed to get the application in at least three weeks out from the event. They got their application in about two or 2½ months out from the event, but they were still refused any response to their application until days before the event.

By definition, if the minimum time before the event in which to apply is three weeks then clearly the office can process the application within three weeks. People go to the trouble of putting in an application well in advance so they will know if it is successful or unsuccessful or if there are any special conditions, or anything like that that they need to comply with, yet they are kept waiting until the very last minute. You might have 50 or 100 people invited to come to the local footy club for a 21^st birthday party and it is all on track, but the office has refused to give them confirmation of whether or not the event is going ahead. That is unreasonable, it is unhelpful and it is stressful to the people who go out of their way to responsibly organise an event.

They are just two examples of matters that are important; and these are incredibly important events within small rural communities. That is not to say that you cannot have fun without a drink or anything like that, but anybody who thinks you can have a 21^st birthday party without a drink, in 99.9 per cent of cases, is kidding themselves; and anybody who thinks they can run a rodeo without a few beers is kidding themselves.

Whether people like it or not—and I am not suggesting the government feels this way—it is part of what we do in Australia, so let's have some rules that allow us to do it responsibly. Let's have some rules that allow us to do it in a fun, enjoyable and mature way, but let's not make it more difficult than it needs to be, especially for volunteers who try to contribute responsibly. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.