Bills

Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (15:50): I rise to resume my speech. The issues I am choosing to raise are not the only relevant issues with regard to liquor licensing or this bill; they have been ably covered by our deputy leader and other speakers.

I am choosing to talk particularly about issues that affect country and regional areas, and the next one I want to address is in regard to bottle shops, and there is an example in my electorate of Port Augusta, but no doubt this occurs in many other places. We have many people come to Port Augusta from the north of the state during summertime. They come and stay, and they enjoy a more comfortable climate then they would have in their own homes. With those visitors come some difficulties—certainly not with all of them but with some—in regard to antisocial behaviour, a lot of which is linked to alcohol. We have an issue whereby bottle shops opening from 9 o'clock in the morning are well patronised by people who, in my opinion, should not be drinking at 9 o'clock in the morning.

Simultaneously, we have tourists travelling through, mostly in caravans, who are looking to leave Port Augusta and travel to their next destination. Maybe they are going to another town, or maybe they are not going to another town for a few days, but they want to stock up and get some groceries and other provisions, and that may well include a bottle of wine, a carton of beer or something like that. We have a mix of patrons wanting, for a range of reasons, to access bottle shops relatively early in the morning long before the pub is open, and that is a challenge that needs to be addressed. I do not plan to go into that in any more detail here, but it is a very difficult issue because there are good reasons for those bottle shops to be open at those times of day; of course, with that come some problems.

Another issue I want to deal with, which affects not only regional areas, certainly has come up in my personal experience as a licensee and also with businesses that operate in my electorate now—that is, the difficulty of staff in licensed premises dealing with barring orders. Quite regularly, information (names, photographs and things like that) is provided to licensed establishments that the staff are meant to look at so that they recognise somebody who is barred if they walk through the door. It could be for a wide range of reasons—it could be to do with the consumption of alcohol and it could be to do with gaming as well.

It is pretty impractical for a staff member, who may be full-time or part-time, to keep a list of names and photographs behind the bar, in the kitchen, in the office or somewhere like that, and know when one of those people walks through the door, when one of those people may well be one of 100 or several hundred who walk through the door that day. It is a big task for the staff member or the managers to deal with. I understand that it is not as if they lose their job instantly if they do not recognise that person, but I would say that it is a very difficult request of management and staff under those circumstances.

Another issue I would like to discuss, and this is on a very positive note, relates to BYO licences for small regional food producers who also occasionally offer meals prepared on their premises, and this is reasonably common in the southern Flinders Ranges. I would not say for a second that everybody is doing it—far from it.

You find that in many parts of the state people are creating a business, usually on a small farm, where they are producing local, homegrown, typically very environmentally responsible clean organic produce. Their main business is selling produce as ingredients, selling wholesale, but occasionally they like to use those ingredients and provide a meal for people to taste on their property.

This issue was brought to me originally by Mrs Jackie O'Reilly. Dave and Jackie O'Reilly run O'Reilly's orchards, right next to the Wirrabara Forest in the Southern Flinders Ranges. I could list 20 other people running food-based businesses closely linked to tourism in this region, but Jackie was the first person to bring this to me. She said, 'We don't want to serve alcohol, but what we do want, on those few occasions where we are producing a meal for people which includes our ingredients so they can get to know how good our ingredients are and how they can be used, is we would like them to be able to bring along a beer or a wine or something like that so they can enjoy it.'

They are not looking to sell the beer or the wine: they just want them to be able to bring it along. As it currently stands, they would be required to get a BYO licence every single time and, of course, the application fee for the BYO licence would make that small event cost prohibitive. These people only do this once a week or once a month and then maybe not for a few months. There is no real system to it; it is just when the opportunity presents itself. It is not the core of their business and it is not the money-making part of their business, but it is an important ancillary that supports the money-making part of the business.

I took this up on behalf of Mrs O'Reilly. I even had a private member's bill produced, and I thank parliamentary counsel for their support with that. It was never actually used because the bill we are talking about and the public consultation surpassed my putting a private member's bill in place, but I did also write to the Attorney-General on 22 September explaining the situation, saying that surely it must be possible for these people not to have to get a separate BYO licence every time. The Attorney wrote back to me on 11 October. I will read a short excerpt from his letter in response to mine, which says:

It is anticipated that a BYO permit will be introduced as part of the revised legislation following notification to the Licensing Authority, this permit is likely to be granted for a period of three years, subject to an initial application fee and renewal fees.

I am very grateful to the government and the minister for including that in this bill. I do not shy away from the fact that, as the deputy leader has explained, there are many other issues to be dealt with but, let me say that, as the member for Stuart on behalf of my constituents particularly in the Southern Flinders Ranges, I am grateful that this change has been made.

It was common sense. It was not something I was actually unaware of until the issue was brought to me. It is great common sense that that change be made and I think it is a very positive outcome. It really is right on the edge of the service of alcohol. It is not core. It is not what these people are trying to do. It is just a way of supporting and essentially marketing their food-producing business.

Let me just finish by saying that liquor licensing, in my opinion, must be as light a touch as possible on the businesses that serve liquor one way or another—allowing service through BYO or with a restaurant licence or hotel licence or a takeaway licence. It needs to provide safety to patrons. It even needs to provide safety to people who are not patrons, other people on the road, for example, who may come into contact with someone who has been a patron.

We must provide that safety, but it has to be done in a way that is as light a touch as possible both with regard to regulations and with regard to cost to the businesses that are actually operating because, as I stated at the very beginning of my remarks, before question time, these businesses contribute enormously to our economy and they are massively important employers, very importantly providing very flexible employment, which is often not available in other industries. They need to be supported, and one way to support them is to impose as light a restriction on them as possible.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (15:59): I rise, too, to speak to the Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill, a bill that has been a long time coming since the Attorney announced Tim Anderson QC's review, which I think would have been in late 2015. It was interesting timing for that review, given that a review into the late night code of practice was undertaken concurrently, but came, went and was finalised well before this review was finished. Interestingly, it has been about nine or 10 months since Tim Anderson's review was completed, but here we are. The hope certainly was that the Attorney, taking his time, would get the bill right. Unfortunately, in a number of instances, that is probably not the case.

There is some good work in parts of the bill. Certainly, the aim of the bill in attempting to reduce red tape for liquor licence holders is admirable. In some instances, I think that that is going to result in less red tape, but we will be asking questions on some other areas where I believe the bill will actually increase red tape. That is not to suggest that we are not going to support some of these measures, but we will potentially ask questions around how we can seek to minimise the increase of that red tape through the administration of this.

As the member for Schubert, otherwise known as the member for wine, depending on how you look at my electorate, somewhere between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of my electorate is based around the manufacture, sale, consumption and promotion of alcohol, so this bill can represent a great boon to my electorate, but it can also be a great risk to my electorate. In coming at this, I have tried to balance the views I have around community safety, which is an extremely important measure, against people's personal liberties and freedoms and the idea that wine, beer, spirits and alcohol are not the same as other illicit substances. Alcohol is not tobacco, in that moderate consumption can actually be a good thing. Alcohol is not marijuana. Alcohol is not amphetamines, ice or any other illicit substance.

A number of contributions have sought to paint alcohol as in the same class of substance as these others, and that simply is not the case. Whether it is DrinkWise or the Harvard Medical School, there are so many sources that suggest that the moderate consumption of alcohol is certainly okay and in some cases can actually be positive, in conjunction with a healthy lifestyle. This shows that this substance should be treated differently from other drugs and, in the way we seek to regulate it, we should recognise those differences.

In my electorate, it boils down to seeking to do what is right on behalf of the community from a safety standpoint, understanding that there are risks with alcohol consumption but not stifling a successful advanced manufacturing industry that is critically important to South Australia. In fact, it seems quite odd that a government that would seek to champion Penfolds, Henschke and all the big names in wine on its trip to China would at the same time seek to stifle the marketing ability of these companies here in South Australia. I find that quite frustrating, disingenuous and hypocritical, but that is a different matter for a different day.

Another thing I would like to say first and foremost is that risky drinking of alcohol is actually falling. We know this from a 2013 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare study. I quote from the 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report, which states:

A lower proportion of Australians aged 14 and older consumed alcohol in risky quantities in 2013 compared to 2010—the proportion of lifetime risky drinkers and single occasion risky drinkers declined.

We know that the proportion of people aged 14 and older choosing to abstain from alcohol has risen from 19.9 per cent to 22 per cent. This was influenced by an increase in young people aged between 12 and 17 abstaining from alcohol, increasing from 64 per cent to 71 per cent. The ABS also has statistics that show that the overall apparent rate of consumption of alcohol in Australia is falling. Again, these are 2013-14 statistics from the ABS. The statistics show that a total of 10.63 litres of pure alcohol per person was consumed in 2009, and in 2014 that figure was down to 9.71 per cent.

We are talking here about a roughly 10 per cent decrease in the overall per capita consumption of alcohol. I state that because it shows that the current settings are having the effect of reducing consumption of alcohol and risky consumption of alcohol, so this idea that we need to go farther and harder does not stand up with the macro evidence. Regardless of that, I think there are specific instances that we need to deal with, and certainly some of the things within this bill may be able to help address those.

I am very glad that the government reversed its idiotic position to try to have a .00 blood alcohol level for the hospitality industry. That would make a criminal of every single sommelier, every single cellar-door hand in my electorate who pops an expensive bottle of wine that has a cork (wines with corks are generally the most expensive). It would make it illegal for them to test the thing before they give it to their customers. That is completely unworkable and completely ridiculous, and I am glad that the government saw sense and pulled it out. I do not understand why it is okay to drive a car under .05 but not okay to pour a glass of wine; that is beyond me. However, that said, it is out and I think that is a good thing.

There are some good points in this bill, especially in relation to the new category of production licence; I think there are some good things about the rights that are going to be conferred upon that licence. There are some potentially good changes around the limited licensing scheme, and I want to tease out what 'low risk' and 'a low risk event' mean. Certainly, as someone who has had to put in a heap of applications every time I want to have a little shindig, being able to notify of an event rather than having to potentially go back and forth with CBS is potentially a good thing.

There is a great unknown when it comes to the community impact test and how those assessment guidelines are going to turn out. Again, this is where red tape could be vastly increased or vastly decreased, especially when we are talking about the fact that there are a number of licences now where the needs test has not been applied that, if there were no objections to the application, would have been quietly able to go through. Now, basically every single licence is going to have to have a community impact test, and that is red tape.

Also, the things that a community impact test is going to have to consider are quite broad and wideranging and will probably lead to there needing to be a professional service provided so that applicants can complete their applications. We need to address that in the way this bill is administered. As one of the objects of this bill is to reduce red tape, we should try to find a way for the community impact test not to be a huge burden upon licensees.

There are some serious questions in relation to how we transition the licences. Notwithstanding what is in the second reading speech, I think there is some important stuff around how we are going to fit the square peg of a special circumstances licence into the round holes of the other new licence categories. However, again, we will tease that out in committee.

There are three things we will seek to change as part of this bill. The first is that we will seek to abolish the three-hour restraint of trade rule that has been inserted here. Notwithstanding that the final wording and the final 3am until 8am as opposed to 3am until 9am window is slightly different from what Tim Anderson QC sought to do, we think the government has presented no evidence as to why we need further restraint around late-night trading. In fact, when it comes to late-night trading more generally, we see that the government has been caught out not telling the truth when it comes to whether or not the existing lockout is effective.

In fact, after much consternation and much FOI'ing, after much harassing by journalists at The Advertiser, we finally got the truth in regard to what is going on. We found that the government has been caught out doctoring the report into the lockout laws to basically reverse the final outcome. In an email sent between a working group looking into the report, they asked to make some key changes, and dot point 6 says, 'further softened the language around causation as agreed at the meeting, so that the report does not say that the code has had little effect'.

Basically, the original draft of the report said that the late night code of practice had little effect. Essentially, we want to change it so that it does not say that. The original draft submission by SAPOL on the late night code of practice said this:

Overall, it is difficult to determine the effectiveness of the Late Night Code in reducing offending behaviour using the existing data. Because police statistics are affected by many factors, the fact that a strong decline in late night offending behaviour in the CBD compared with the metropolitan area has not been observed does not mean that this has not occurred.

In other words, even though the evidence says that there was as big a drop in metropolitan Adelaide as there was in the CBD post that late night code of practice coming into effect, that does not mean that there has not been an effect which basically says, 'Just ignore the evidence because it doesn't suit the outcome we wanted.' The next sentence states:

However, there is no evidence to indicate that the Late Night Code has resulted in a strong decrease in late night alcohol-related offending behaviour.

Essentially, what the draft said before it was doctored was that the late night code of practice does not work. What has happened then is that the government has not sought to show its red face, to accept the fact that there is no evidence for further tightening of the lockout, but has gone and further tightened the lockout. No evidence has been presented to us that there is an issue. We have inquired about this on a number of occasions. When the deputy leader and I have sought to get to the bottom of the issue, the only response we have had is, 'Yes, well, I can provide you with a couple of anecdotal examples.' I am sorry, but that is not good enough.

If we are seeking to make Adelaide a less vibrant city and seeking to take away the freedoms and liberties of young South Australians who simply want to do the right thing and go out and responsibly enjoy themselves, then we should put some evidence on the table. That has not happened. This is why we will be seeking to knock out this restraint of trade rule, because it is nothing more than the Attorney-General trying to tell young South Australians how to live their lives.

On this side of the house, we want to stick up for young people. We want to stick up for a vibrant city, because vibrancy is not about lights on the side of a street: vibrancy is about helping a night-time economy to grow and flourish and be responsible. It is not about punishing the many because of the mistakes of the very few. The vast majority of young people who go out on a weekend do so responsibly and enjoy themselves, and we should be sticking up for them. We should punish those who deserve to be punished, not everybody.

The government has also gone some way to help provide more opportunities for the police to be able to manage public precincts. We have passed new laws in relation to declared public precincts, and we think that is a much better way to manage this process. The fact that that bill has been passed makes it even more marginal that we need to go down a restraint of trade path. That is why we will be opposing this measure.

We are also concerned about the licence fee structure. Whether it is increasing the emergency services levy and preying on the goodwill of South Australians, rather than properly funding emergency services, or whether it is cost-shifting the natural resources management levy to again take on the goodwill of country South Australia in relation to wanting to keep their natural environment safe, there are so many areas in which this Labor government sees a tax and only sees ways to increase it. Again, no evidence whatsoever has been put forward to suggest that increasing fees is anything other than a tax grab.

Again, on this side of the house, we will do what we can to try to be much more transparent in relation to how these fees are set. We will be seeking to have those regulations put into a separate set of regulations so that we can move a disallowance if the government tries to jack up the fees too high. We can do that separately from the rest of the regulations so that we do not hold up the proper operation of these changes. The subsequent regulations to do that are to come, but we need to make sure that there is proper scrutiny around licensing fees because life is difficult out there. Existing liquor licences have unprecedented levels of competition.

The suburban pub, which for generations has been a backbone, a centre and a hub for social activity, especially in rural towns, is seeing unprecedented levels of competition from those who choose to stay at home, from restaurants, from cafes and, in my electorate, from cellar doors, which have morphed from places where you can simply try a couple of tipples of wine to places that offer food and a complete hospitality package. We need to make sure that those businesses can stay competitive because they employ a huge number of South Australians.

We need a tax regime that helps to make our businesses competitive so that they can grow, reinvest and employ more South Australians. On this side of the house, we know that smaller increases in taxation are the best way to help business thrive, strive and create new jobs for South Australians. There are some serious questions that need to be answered during the passage of this bill because there are some serious concerns around the implementation of this act going forward, and always with these things the devil is very much in the detail.

We have questions to ask around how special circumstances licences are going to be administered, and there are some concerns from industry around that. There are some concerns about how the community interest test is going to be applied, and some of the licensees who have recently gone through applications have talked about what the process has meant to them. There are concerns around why, for instance, conciliation has apparently been wiped completely from the act. The government needs to confirm why they believe that the model they are putting in place will lead to a reduction of red tape overall and a reduction in the time it takes to process these licences.

There are questions around appeal rights and how one of the main stated aims of this bill, in relation to moving from an objection-based system to a submission-based system, restricting where councils can intervene in a liquor licensing court, is going to result in lower disputation when a vexatious competitor can still appeal a decision of the liquor licensing court. That appeal mechanism still exists. Also, if we have got rid of conciliation, have we got rid of the one spot where a decision could have been made prior to going to a full hearing?

I have questions in relation to the supply of liquor to minors. It is a position our party supports, but it is one that bears some close scrutiny to ensure that it is in operation properly, to make sure that we do not turn into a criminal every single parent who believes that it is better to encourage their young, under-age children to stay at home and have parties at home so that they can keep an eye on them and keep them safe and that we do not essentially push every single parent into saying, 'Well, I am not having the party at my house,' and every single parent in the friendship group does that, so the kids do not stay at home anymore and run off to the local park where there is no supervision and no regulation. We need to make sure that this has the effect of reducing risky behaviour and not simply making a criminal of every single parent who tries to keep an eye on their child.

There are questions especially around how vigorously this is going to be enforced. Are we going to see police go through parties and review the permission slips to ensure that the red tape is all up-to-date by the parents and then take those individual permission slips and breath-test every child to see that, if they had permission to drink two drinks, there are only two in their system, or whether they had been allowed to have a couple more, and how it is intended the parents will be able to police this measure? There is a long way to go to try to improve what is otherwise a bill that has some merit so that we can make sure that we get the balance right between community safety and freedom, liberty and the right of South Australians to enjoy themselves with moderate consumption of alcohol.

Time expired.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (16:19): I thank those who contributed to the debate. I think there are some points of common ground here, and I thought I would start on that because it is always nice to start in the sunlit uplands. The common ground is that everybody here accepts that alcohol is part of our culture and part of normal life, unless of course you are hoping to live to be 120, in which case, according to something I have read, you should not have too much, although there are different opinions on that, so I will not go down that track too far.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: But—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is she taunting you?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, but I won't be taunted, Madam Deputy Speaker. The basic thing is this: everyone accepts alcohol is a fact of life in our culture. Everyone accepts that alcohol can be a normal and undamaging feature of domestic life for people in this state. However, people also need to recognise that there are some people out there for whom alcohol is a significant problem. We need to be aware that alcohol is a substance that can be abused, and when it is abused we wind up with a whole cascading series of other problems, whether it is health issues, police issues or criminal justice issues. These are things I think everybody agrees on.

The margin for the conversation appears to be around exactly how we go about regulating these things—that is really where the conversation is. Before I get into the more particular aspect of it, can I say that there is a part of this that unfortunately, or fortunately depending on which way you look at it, has been brought to my attention recently in a personal sense—that is, the supply of alcohol to minors.

Like many people in this place, I am a parent. I have the good fortune to have three terrific children, but I have had the opportunity by reason of my interaction with my children and their friends to see a few things about alcohol and younger people. I do not start from the proposition that there should be some sort of puritanical or prohibition-type approach taken to alcohol anywhere. I certainly think that there is much to be said for the proposition that responsible parents who educate their children about the safe and appropriate place in their lives for alcohol probably do their children a service.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed. The member for Light interjects, and I am reminded that, when I was a much younger person, some of my family friends were from the Campagna area. When their children were quite young, it was quite normal for them to be given a very small glass of diluted homemade red—and the homemade red was not too bad, to be honest.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: It varies.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It varies, that is true, but they would get a small glass along with everybody else—

The Hon. A. Piccolo: At mealtime.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —at mealtime, yes. The take on that was that this was actually educating this person about the responsible consumption of alcohol, and it also meant that it was is demystifying the whole process so that at some point later on, if somebody offered this person a drink, they were not going to be in any way confronted with something that was new and threatening and perhaps something they had no control over.

I am all for that sort of responsible interaction, where it is supervised by a responsible parent or guardian in that respect. That is fine, and I do not think that anybody in this house would object to that, but in the paper only yesterday or today there was an example of something that has become a phenomenon in this state. I have learned by proxy, through my exposure to my children and their friends, about a thing called an afterparty. I think they have a before party. It is interesting—you do not just go to a party anymore.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't, as it turns out.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Neither do I. I do not get invited anymore, but when I was a bit younger (which I know was before your time) you used to go out somewhere and you would do whatever you were doing; you might have a couple of drinks and then you would come home. That is evidently not what goes on now. What goes on now is you go to somebody's place, and this person has been to Patrick Murphy's, I think it is called (I will call it that so that I am not advertising anybody) and they have come back with multiple bottles, usually of high-octane stuff—rocket fuel. It is vodka or something of that order.

You then go into a bit of a huddle, usually with a token smattering of fruit juice to make it look like it is a healthy alternative, and you power into it for a period of time. Then, a bit later on—usually too late, from my point of view, because it is something like 10 o'clock when you should be in bed—you go out. After you have been out, you come back and finish off. I am not reporting what my children do: I am reporting what I have heard from them. There is this particular phenomenon about school formals and things. Once upon a time, you used to go to the opportunity shop and buy yourself a suit because you did not have one—at least, that is what we did in the western suburbs, anyway. You go to the opportunity shop, buy yourself a suit—

Ms Chapman: When did you ever live in the western suburbs?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have always lived in the western suburbs.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the house that it is not Thursday. We have some work ahead of us.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You would go to the school event—

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Schubert.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —there would be several different kinds of cordial and you would listen to the music. I remember the member for Colton and I going to the school hall at Henley. There were some fantastic events there, bootscooting and all sorts of stuff. I know he probably will not like me saying this, but even Mr Horne, were he here, would remember—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a teacher at the school?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, he wasn't a teacher at the school, but he was a student at the school. He has now gone on to bigger and better things, but even Mr Horne would remember this sort of thing going on. It was all quite good, and then you went home at about 11.30.

Ms Chapman: Don't you want to do any other bills this afternoon?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My feelings exactly.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am building up to something here. Now you have the pre-party, the party and the afterparty. The afterparty occurs in some sort of derelict shed somewhere in God knows where; it could be anywhere. What is the supervision at this place? There are lots of people in there who are under 18 years of age, people are bringing all manner of stuff to these places and, understandably, parents are concerned about it.

I think it is important that the legislature is aware of this and takes it on board and does something about it because parents are concerned, and so they should be. The member for Morialta has raised these things a couple of times, and I acknowledged before that he had set my mind a-racing. I have thought a lot about what he had to say, and I have tried to incorporate some of the good ideas he had into this bill. So, that is a preamble.

As we know, these amendments to the Liquor Licensing Act come in the wake of a thoroughgoing review undertaken by Mr Tim Anderson QC. Can I say that he engaged extensively with the community and all the interested sectors, including licence holders. Mr Anderson's report very fairly balances up the legitimate expectations of the community for certain standards to be upheld. It also reflects the expectation people have about the responsibility that those holding a liquor licence should take for being afforded that privilege by being the holder of the licence.

As I have mentioned, we are seeking to protect minors by tightening up secondary supply. With all due respect to some of the comments here about getting consent forms and all of that, it is terrific rhetoric, very good, although not linked to this bill, but very entertaining all the same. We are trying to reframe drinking culture inasmuch as the supervising structure can get the message across to people that there is nothing wrong with having a drink but that they should be trying to do it in the responsible way that is not harmful to them or other people.

We should also be recognising that some forms of the supply of alcohol are inherently more risky in terms of the health and public safety elements than others. There is nothing remarkable about that, I would have thought. Indeed, the member for Stuart in his remarks was talking about the challenges of being a licensee in the more remote northerly parts of this state and what risks are inherent in being a licensee in those circumstances. We are basically looking at the interests of the community being put front and centre, and those interests are not in being a wowser or introducing prohibition or something of that nature; they are encouraging responsible service and consumption of alcohol and discouraging irresponsible service and consumption of alcohol. It is as simple as that.

A number of comments were made about the fees. In relation to the fee issue, we have indicated to the Hotels Association—and I would like the Hotels Association to hear this—that we will be continuing our dialogue about fees. This bill provides an opportunity for the fee regime to be managed through regulation, and that is our intention. There will be ongoing discussions about that. I put that on the record. Mr Anderson made certain recommendations about fees that are neither endorsed nor rejected by the government. They are a starting point for the conversation, and we intend to have that conversation in good faith.

If anybody from the AHA happens to be reading this or listening to it, I would put on the record that I do not personally see any problem with the fee structure, recognising that, at some outlets, the behaviour of some licensees is inherently more risky to the community than that of others. There is a world of difference in terms of the impact on the community of a small restaurant, which trades between noon and 10pm and which serves a bottle of wine or a glass of beer with a meal, and a very large venue, which trades 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and has lots of strobe lights and mirror balls, if that is still the vernacular; I am not sure if they are still current, as I have not been into one of these places for a while. Strangely enough, people consume a lot of water there. I do not know why, but there we are. Those venues are completely different venues, and the risk profile is completely different.

As I said, the debate today is not about the actual fees; it is about the architecture of the legislation, which is trying to strike that balance between a safe drinking culture, meeting community expectations and putting reasonable expectations on licensees to behave in a way that is acceptable to the general public. I am aware of a couple of amendments that have been put forward by various members. Can I just speak briefly to those, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have not had a lot of time to consider them, but—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you are fast on your feet.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —since lunch I have been pondering them, so here they are in no particular order. First, there is a bunch of amendments from me; they are all good and I will deal with them as they come along. By and large, they are very positive, and they have come out of negotiations with interested parties, including the Hotels Association. Were they here today, I would be saying to them, 'Thanks for engaging with us. We look forward to continuing engagement over the fees matter.' I could also say that some of the people who were complaining most about fees quite possibly are not even members of the Hotels Association. I say that again—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you saying that to me?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —they are quite possibly not even members of the Hotels Association. I was looking at you metaphorically when I said that.

There are three things, as I understand it, that are dealt with by the amendments that are being put forward by the deputy leader. The first one is to attempt to get rid of the three-hour break in trade in alcohol. The proposition is pretty simple: if you want to stay open 24 hours a day and you are a licensed outfit, that is fine, but for three hours you will not serve alcohol. Let's stop being coy, cagey and speaking half-truths here.

What we are talking about is pretty simple; that is, we are talking about the fact that there are some venues that think that serving alcohol from 9 o'clock in the evening until midday the next day is fine. In relation to those venues, I ask every person of goodwill and common sense to ask themselves: if they were required to have a break in trade between the hours of three and eight in the morning, what harm would be done to the community? The answer is none.

In fact, the people who would still be in those venues would have the opportunity to try a cappuccino or some other refreshing beverage that might go some small way to settling them down and possibly even getting them home, but that is a matter for them. They could stay there all night if they wanted to. I just ask people to examine this seriously. What public good is done by having people being able to go to a venue and literally drink all night?

The commissioner has recommended that there be a break in the service of alcohol. I strongly support that recommendation. It is transparently obviously in the public interest and would go some way to make clear that the idea of the round-the-clock drinking culture is not part of anything that we as a parliament are seeking to establish.

Second, there is the publicly available licensee register, which is for the people who have misbehaved and been prosecuted. I heard the arguments advanced by some that the person or the outfit that is prosecuted should suffer the prosecution and that should be it. They should not suffer anything else. If I know there is a venue where that licensee has been prosecuted for under-age drinking or that licensee has been prosecuted for irresponsible service of alcohol—

Mr Knoll: Given that to date there have only been four convictions, it will be a pretty short list.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Schubert.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —I think, as a parent, I should have that information available to me so that, to the extent that I can influence whether my kids are going to that place or another place, I know whether they are going into a place that has a good reputation or one that has a reputation that is the subject of some past prosecution. I think that it is simply a matter of information being made available. I cannot see anything wrong with that.

As I said, the last point about fees is something we have said we are in continuing discussions with the hotels about, and of course we will no doubt come to a happy landing on that one. The other one, Madam Deputy Speaker, is an amendment filed by you. As I understand your amendment, you are concerned about the advertising of alcohol and the impact that has. I have not had a long time to consider your amendment, but can I say that it strikes me as subtle and clever because it leaves an enormous amount of flexibility for us to target areas that are particularly concerning.

For example, if we were having alcohol advertised in proximity to children or other vulnerable people, or we had some sort of methodology of in effect pushing alcohol in an environment where that was inappropriate, the amendment you have suggested, Madam Deputy Speaker, provides an opportunity for that to be rectified. Quite frankly, I am finding it hard to see anything wrong with that. I am pretty impressed with that, to be honest.

My present view, even though I need more time to reflect on it, is that at first blush it is something that does at least deserve further consideration by the parliament. Without any further ado, and I do not want to disrupt the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is deep in thought presently, let us go into committee.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has the government yet prepared draft regulations in respect of the new bill?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, and of course the reason is that, although we are obviously hoping the form of the bill will be very much as is set out in the bill we have brought to the parliament, we do not yet know the final form of the bill. So rather than doing work that either might become unnecessary or will have to be redone, it is conventional for us to wait and see what the bill looks like before we trouble parliamentary counsel with drafting detailed regulations.

Ms CHAPMAN: If and when the bill is passed, what is the expected time frame for regulations to be prepared, consulted on and presented?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is one of my favourite questions. My answer to that is: within weeks. That is my answer, though. I then have to ask the people who actually do it and sometimes they do not have the same time lines that I do because they live in the real world. It might take a month or two, or maybe more.

I think the idea is that there would be a staged implementation. I will give you an example. What we are doing in following these recommendations is to collapse the present number of 13 or so licence categories down into some other categories. There is a piece of work to be done there in pretty much physically going through each licence and reclassifying that licence. We will not be changing the substantial entitlements that the licensee has, but reformatting is perhaps a better way of putting it.

Exactly how long that is going to take, I do not know. I have had discussions with Consumer and Business Services. I suggested to them that, if two or three of them got together with me with a pizza and a bottle of lemonade, we could do it over a weekend, and they said I was being optimistic. So, I do not know how long it is going to take. Realistically, I think it will be phased, but you can have my assurance that, as soon as we can put any of this in place, we will.

It is not as if we have not talked to our friends in the Hotels Association about this matter because we have. It is not as though there is a whole bunch of surprises sitting here; all this is pretty well-canvassed territory. The consultation part of the regulations has largely occurred.

Ms CHAPMAN: In a letter dated 22 April provided by the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, Acting Minister for Consumer and Business Services, he provided at page 4 a summary of the expected liquor licensing annual fees. In particular, he confirmed that at present the revenue per year is $2.65 million. He went on to say that, if table 10 in Mr Anderson's report were implemented, the revenue would be approximately $7.21 million per year.

As I understand it, however, the Attorney has indicated that the government has not yet decided on what they will apply out of that scale; therefore, presumably it could be less, not more. According to what Mr Anderson has outlined, that would provide an increased revenue of about $4.5 million per year. Whilst I appreciate that there has been no agreement yet reached, or at least consultation and a decision made by the government as to how much of that scale they are going to introduce, my question is: how much per year, in the forward estimates, has been taken into account as a revenue from this source?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have to take that on notice and get some further information, but can I explain something to the deputy leader because it might help. There has been a projection over the next couple of years of how much the implementation of the transition will cost. Because the costs of implementation or transition are necessarily up-front, I think it is accepted by government that an initial injection of funds for the purpose of enabling and facilitating that transition to occur will be necessary. That will come in advance of any return from fees.

The question is really: over what period of time, ultimately, will the transitional costs of the establishment of a new scheme be recouped through future receipts? That is, in effect, the question, and the answer is that we are still in negotiations with the interested people about this. That is the state of play. There is no government-settled fee structure.

Ms CHAPMAN: How much has been allocated for the transitional costs?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will have to get back to the deputy leader with the exact numbers, but there are estimates over a couple of years to deal with that. As I said, there is a lump at the beginning, and I am advised that the lump at the beginning is substantially because the old classification of licence requires that licence to be individually considered and then reformatted into the new format. That is not something that can be automated; it does require effort and will consume some time.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just to be clear, the question you have redrafted that you assume I have asked is not correct. I am not asking what the net costs will be or, in fact, over what time you will need to recoup the up-front costs. I accept that there will be up-front costs and I expect that they are in the 2017-18 budget and in the forward estimates, if they are over a period of time, that they will be there and that they will be in the budget and that there will also be a corresponding estimate of revenue—perhaps not in the first financial year, depending on when you introduce this—over and above the $2.65 million in the forward estimates.

I accept that they may be variable in the sense of what you might ultimately negotiate/decide, but they will be there, on the plus and on the minus, and they are the figures I want. I hope I have made myself clear on that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think I understand the question and, yes, I will do my best to get those numbers. It may be between the houses, but I will do my best to get the numbers.

Mr KNOLL: The second reading speech says that the broad measures in the bill are designed to increase efficiency and the regulation of liquor licensing in this state. How is it that with a bill that has an expressed aim of increasing efficiency, you are saying that there is actually an increased cost that will have to be borne by the industry? Essentially, I think what you are saying is that an industry that did not ask for a review got a review and is now going to have to pay for it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As to the second point, I am not quite sure of any industry that asks for a review. If they need a review, I think it is even less likely that they are going to ask for one, and I say that in general terms. As to this particular industry, the last substantial change in this area was 20-something years ago, and I think before that it was in the 1960s with Justice Sangster, as he then was, who did a lot of work on this topic. It is not unreasonable that every two decades or so there is a substantial look at a major area of licensing such as liquor licensing.

The second point is that I do not think there is any question that, in the last 20 years, issues around the supply and consumption of alcohol have evolved at least, if not changed, and it is equally reasonable, in those circumstances, for the situation to be reviewed. As to the question of cost, I come back to the point I have made several times already: we do not have a settled scale of costs. However, from my point of view—and I am expressing my personal view here, and it is in line with the general proposition advanced by Mr Anderson—as a general point, the impact on the community and the cost of the licence should, in broad terms, be linked. So, the very low impact licence, the licence that disturbs very little, should receive a relatively light touch from a fee point of view, and the licence that is high impact should, relatively speaking, receive a higher fee structure.

Other than stating those broad propositions, the matter is, as I have said several times, a matter for ongoing negotiation. It is no secret—and I do not want to name venues, because that probably would not be helpful—that there are some venues around Adelaide, in particular in the city centre, that are deeply associated with an unhealthy drinking culture and significantly associated with the requirement for the police to intervene and ensure that order and public safety are observed. In my opinion, venues that disrupt the safety, harmony and wellbeing of the community should pay a licence fee that reflects the impact they have on the community, because the community has granted them the privilege of having a licence. That is a general statement of principle. I emphasise again that the nitty-gritty of it, who pays what, is something that we are working on.

Mr KNOLL: The minister spoke about the ability of Consumer and Business Services to undertake these transitional arrangements in a timely manner. Can the minister confirm that the licences, as they currently exist on the CBS website, are actually up to date? Are the current conditions for licensees up to date on the website?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I would have to get somebody from the agency to check, but my assumption—and it is only an assumption—is that they are current. But we will check.

Ms CHAPMAN: A number of the stakeholders in the area where the liquor licensing regime is to come into place with a new fee structure are hotels that also have the exercise of gaming, that provide a gambling outlet. In respect of the Independent Gambling Authority, Mr Anderson was commissioned to do a second report late last year. Do you have that report yet? I am not asking you to detail what is in it or anything, but do you have that report and, if so, when do you intend to release it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Even though it does not have much to do with this, yes, I do have a report from Mr Anderson in relation to that. I have yet to fully consider exactly what, if anything, should be taken from that report. If anything does emerge from that report that should be taken forward, it would be my responsibility, first of all, to discuss that with cabinet for cabinet to form a view. Then, cabinet having formed a view, the process would begin in terms of specific discussions with affected parties, the drafting of legislation and suchlike. We are not at that point, and I am yet to come to a view about exactly how I should proceed with that.

Ms CHAPMAN: I note that and I do not want to interfere with that in any way. I am going to ask the Attorney to give an assurance, given that this legislation is going through, that before there is any determination on the fees and the structure in relation to this, and if there is any amendment in relation to the fee structure through the gaming arrangements that are proposed, that they be fully disclosed to the stakeholders before that is finalised.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I obviously agree in principle. The only point I would make is that the fees in relation to gaming are matters that are dealt with by Treasury and not by CBS because they are predominantly a taxation matter, as opposed to other things, and they are the main bits. If there is going to be any movement in the gaming area, I am confident that one way or another it will be brought to the attention of the interested groups sometime over the course of this year, and that would mean they would know what was going on.

As I said to the honourable member before, it may be in terms of whatever it is that Mr Anderson has been doing, there is no change in that regime, but that does not mean that there could not be a change in the regime completely independent of Mr Anderson to do with the functions Treasury has in respect of gaming.

Ms CHAPMAN: You have a say.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: But I do not negotiate. I am sure that if you could find anybody from the AHA they would inform you that Treasury are the people to whom they speak about those matters not me.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

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

Amendment No 1 [ConsBusServ–1]—

Page 8, line 10 [clause 5(9), definition of designated licence, (c)]—

Delete paragraph (c) and substitute:

(c) a club licence, if—

(i) the licence is, or is proposed to be, subject to a condition authorising—

(A) the sale of liquor to persons (other than a resident) for consumption off the licensed premises; or

(B) the sale of liquor after 2 am on any day; or

(ii) in the opinion of the licensing authority, the business conducted under the licence and activities on the premises or proposed premises will have a substantial adverse impact on the amenity of the locality in which those premises are, or are to be, situated, taking into account—

(A) the size of the premises or proposed premises; and

(B) the trading hours or proposed trading hours under the licence; and

(C) any other matter the licensing authority considers relevant; or

This amendment amends the definition of designated licence for the purposes of the new community interest test. For those following this, the community interest test has, in effect, replaced the old needs tests. Designated licences are a certain class of licence that will be subject to the new community interest test as proposed in new section 53A. As a result of further consultation with interested parties, the definition of designated licence in respect to club licences is sought to be amended to provide parameters around which applications for the grant or removal of a club licence will be subject to the new test.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have a general question. As I understand it, all these amendments relate to dealing with this designated licence issue. This has been identified as a weakness in the bill, to the extent that inadvertently there is the capturing of a whole lot of areas that were not intended to be captured and that would otherwise need to be reviewed, and that was not intended.

On the face of it, on the information that we have been given (I have not checked whether these amendments now tabled reflect that) and assuming that it is an accurate representation of remedying that defect, I do not expect that we will have any issue with it, so I will not be making any other comment on it, and note that these amendments will be introduced and passed, and if any problem is shown up between the houses we will advise the Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I thank the deputy leader for that observation. In very broad terms, we are talking about the fact that we did not want to inadvertently impose upon small clubs unnecessarily burdensome matters. That said, if we have something that is a club and it is called a club but it looks and feels and smells very much like a hotel, then that is a different kettle of fish and that would continue to be dealt with as if it were, in effect, a hotel. We are talking about the local bowls club or something of that nature which is a low-impact, small operation, and we did not want to unnecessarily burden them.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 6 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

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

Amendment No 2 [ConsBusServ–1]—

Page 17, lines 26 to 29 [clause 22, inserted section 36(1)(b)]—Delete paragraph (b)

Amendment No 3 [ConsBusServ–1]—

Page 17, after line 36 [clause 22, inserted section 36]—Insert:

(1a) In addition, the licensing authority may include a condition on a club licence authorising the sale of liquor on the licensed premises on any day over a continuous period authorised by the licensing authority (which must not exceed 13 hours) between 8 am and 10 pm for consumption off the licensed premises.

Amendment No 4 [ConsBusServ–1]—

Page 25, lines 24 and 25 [clause 22, inserted section 40(8)(c)]—

Delete '(including fees for the renewal of a short term licence granted for a period of more than 1 year)'

Amendment No 5 [ConsBusServ–1]—

Page 25, after line 25 [clause 22, inserted section 40(8)]—Insert:

(ca) prescribing requirements in relation to fees in respect of short term licences, including by providing for the cancellation of a short term licence if a fee in respect of the licence is not paid by the date on which the fee is due; and

Amendments carried.

Mr KNOLL: Forgive my potential ignorance here, Attorney. I understand that it is envisaged that there is provision for subcategories of licences to be installed where the commissioner sees fit. First, is that the case? Do you understand when and where it could be used?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I will go quickly through the four we are dealing with and explain them. Amendments Nos 2 and 3 work together as a package and have arisen as a result of consultation with interested parties. Amendment No. 2 deletes proposed section 36(1)(b). Proposed 36(1) outlines what trade a club licence may authorise subject to the Liquor Licensing Act and the conditions of the licence proposed under section 36(1)(b), which authorises the holder of a club licence to sell liquor for consumption off premises subject to the act and the conditions of the licence. Accordingly, if a club licence was not to be granted an authorisation to sell liquor for consumption off the premises, the licence would have to include a condition prohibiting that activity.

Amendment No. 3 inserts a new subsection (1a), which allows the licensing authority to include a condition on a club licence authorising the sale of liquor for consumption off the licensed premises. New subsection (1a) is intended to make the condition allowing a sale of liquor for consumption off premises a separate and distinct condition allowing that activity; in other words, off-licence sales or off-premises sales will be a separate condition on the licence. Another way of putting it is that the liquor licensing commissioner, in determining what the licence conditions might be, will specifically turn his or her mind to off-premises sales.

Amendment No. 4 amends section 48(c), which relates to the regulation-making power for prescribed fees for short-term licences. The wording removed by the amendment is '(including fees for the renewal of a short term licence granted for a period of more than 1 year)'. It is considered that this wording is not required. It is also considered that leaving in that wording may create confusion about renewals of a short-term licence which is not contemplated.

In particular, what we are talking about there is that if a short-term licence is for three years and we have a clause that says 'including fees for renewal of a short-term licence', what we are really talking about is not the renewal of the licence but the annual licence fee, which is not about the renewal; it is simply about the annual fee. We are trying to make it clear that the annual fee, whether that is paid or not paid, is not the renewal of the licence. It may be that failure to pay the fee means the licence is revoked. The question is: does the licensee pay for three years at once or do they pay annual instalments for the three years? We are saying here that we want to make it clear that they can pay annual instalments for three years, but it is a three-year licence and not a one-year licence, if that makes sense.

Clause as amended passed.

Mr KNOLL: I have a question on clause 22.

The CHAIR: We just passed clause 22 in an amended form. Do you want to ask a question on clause 22?

Mr KNOLL: It does relate specifically to licences and the provision of licences, which is clause 22.

The CHAIR: I am going to let you just to keep you happy. It is not going to have any impact on the clause, you understand, because it has already gone through in an amended form, but you can ask the question.

Mr KNOLL: I understand. We are moving to get rid of the special circumstances licence. For something like a party bus, for instance, which category is that licence holder likely to go into?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I think you will like the answer to this. It is probably an on-premises licence, the premises being the bus. Isn't that nice? I had not thought of a bus that way, but there you are.

The CHAIR: Are you sneaking in another one, member for Schubert?

Mr KNOLL: Sure. I assume something like a pool hall or the pedal bar are likely to go under the same category, as an on-premises licence?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised yes.

Mr KNOLL: This is where I am slightly confused. The limited licence that existed before, the one where you put in your application and it comes back, is it now going to come under a short-term licence?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is correct.

Mr KNOLL: You make reference to the fact that for low-risk events, instead of having to go through a process where you put in your application, pay your money and you get your thing back, you can essentially just notify the commissioner of the fact that you are having an event, but that only applies to low-risk licences. Firstly, I think that is correct but, secondly, what constitutes a low-risk event?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer is that the particulars around that licence will be in the regs, and we will be consulting about that. I know what I mean—I mean something where a country—

Ms Chapman: A dance at the Stokes Bay Hall.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Fine—where the prospect of people becoming unruly and untidy is very small. It is minimal. It is a glass of sherry and a piece of cake or something. Why on earth would you wrap those people up in red tape? For those people who are complaining about the high-end fees potential, we are genuinely trying to get to the other end of the spectrum and trying to remove all the unnecessary clutter for the people who just want to have a bake-off at Coomandook and have a glass of sherry afterwards. We are trying to simplify things for ordinary people who are just trying to go about having a birthday party or whatever it might be.

Mr KNOLL: Especially in relation to something like a liquor production and sales licence, this is an example that has been put to me, and this question has two parts. First, in understanding what is a low-risk event, I also understand that for existing licensees there is going to be a greater facility for them to apply for what were limited licences before. Again, they may be able to access this lower threshold. Is it the case that if a higher risk licensee wants to have a low-risk event they are considered low-risk, or does the class of licence make a difference?

The second part of my question involves cellar doors, wineries, that have events all over the place. They have a licensed premises; it is drawn on a map. I will give you a couple of examples. The first is a winery that wants to have a mobile cellar door. Will they be able to make that application under their existing licence even though that existing licence has a defined premises? The second example is a winery that goes to be part of some sort of tasting event. Can they also utilise that same facility?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am advised that the new liquor production and sales licence, in contemplation of that sort of thing, includes what I think these days you would call an app, but an add-on which contemplates pop-ups. If you have a winery with a—

Mr Knoll: A caravan.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, encompassed by your winery sales or whatever licence, it is contemplated that you might bob up at some festival in the city and have a pop-up, for instance, from time to time. That would be captured by that licence. You would just have to let the commissioner know. Just thinking about that, let's say you are a winery that has a cellar-door operation happening. Your cellar-door operation works like this: you have a tasting area, and you are open between midday and 6pm, for argument's sake, and people come in and taste a few samples and they either buy it or they do not buy it. On the face of it, if that is all that is going on, that is a pretty low-risk sort of set up, you would have thought.

However, in terms of the same venue then having a sideline, where on weekends they did weddings or 21^st birthdays, I saw something on telly this week about a wedding in Sydney which got very, very interesting. The reports on the telly said that there was some connection between the wedding getting interesting and the consumption of alcohol. There was just one little activity that occurred at the wedding that lit a fuse, and next thing you know the police are there and goodness knows what. So, just because they are a cellar-door, you could not be blind to the fact that they are doing other things as well, if indeed that is what they are doing. That would be a matter for the commissioner.

Clauses 23 to 25 passed.

Clause 26.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Chapman–1]—

Page 27, lines 8 to 18—Delete the clause

I move amendment No. 1 in the 192(2) portfolio of amendments, which is to delete the clause providing for a continuous three-hour period where trading is not permitted. In short, as I outlined in the second reading debate, the opposition does not agree with this rather butchered amendment relative to Mr Anderson's recommendation. He made it very clear in recommendation No.15:

It is a mandatory condition of a licence that licensed premises must 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 says that it accepted this recommendation in part, but the quirky addition of the Attorney is that it is to restrict trade between 3am and 8am on the claim that 9am is not night trade. I am sure that 7am or 8am is night trade; nevertheless, that was his excuse for varying this. If there was to be a restriction on trade across all venues, then one might see some benefit in this, provided it has some data to support the idea that this would be of benefit. Clearly, the Late Night Venue Association has raised this as a concern in the consultation and certainly takes the view that, even if the three-hour no-trading period of alcohol is to prevail, it should at least be able to set the times up to the period recommended by Mr Anderson.

We considered whether we should just try to amend this back to be consistent with what Mr Anderson recommended. There is still no data to support it and, in all the circumstances, we suggest that this should be removed completely, especially as it does not apply to all venues that sell alcohol. It is an issue we have raised before when the Casino was excluded from lockout laws, and now, of course, we have the Casino still able to continue to trade as it sees fit.

We say this is an unfair imposition on those few venues, other than the Casino, that trade outside the normal trading hours. Obviously, many hotels and the like trade and close well before 3am, 5am, or any of those hours. Nevertheless, there are some venues that provide for the public who for whatever reason might have employment that requires them to be in the night-time trade; and they would seek to have their recreational time, including the right to have alcohol.

This issue was raised at the time liquor licensing was granted to Vili Milisits who, of course, has the great Vili's facility on South Road. His factory outlet has a cafeteria that provides for the sale of alcohol. The argument was run, and it was reasonable, that his night-time staff would knock off at breakfast time and might want to enjoy an alcoholic drink, and they were successful in receiving a licence to do just that. That is reasonable in all the circumstances. It seems to me that this is an unfair imposition without merit and, given the Attorney's penchant to butcher these into his own little quirky proposals, it does not have our support.

Mr KNOLL: As one of the younger MPs in this house and probably the youngest looking, and maybe one of the youngest acting—

Members interjecting:

Mr KNOLL: He's bald and can grow a beard. I feel that it is my place to stand up and respond to this very worthy amendment. From time to time, I find it frustrating; and I can feel the frustration and present the frustration on behalf of young people in South Australia who feel that their parliament does not represent them. Some people look more fondly at their younger days in the rear-view mirror, potentially looking at things in a slightly different way from those of us who can look a little more closely and remember a little more clearly their younger days. I also know this from firsthand experience.

The CHAIR: If you do not have anything pertinent to say to the bill, you need to sit down.

Mr KNOLL: For five years, I was employed by one of these late-night venues as a disc jockey, and every Friday and Saturday night I saw firsthand what happens as we get closer to when the sun comes up.

An honourable member: Did things improve?

Mr KNOLL: They certainly did. The reason I bring this up is that I worked in probably one of the highest risk venues in South Australia, and what I saw was a very well-regulated, very well-policed venue. Very rarely were there issues. In fact, if there was an issue, it did not necessarily happen at the end of the night; it could have happened at any time during the night. The idea of something happening into those later hours more prominently does not stack up with the anecdotal evidence I have.

When we come into this place and seek to take away the freedoms of South Australians, the onus of proof needs to be on those who seek to make the change to prove their case. Categorically, that has not happened in this instance. From the evidence the government did not want us to see, we know that prior to the introduction of a late night code of practice, there was a reduction in both the—

The CHAIR: Member for Schubert, this is actually a speech. Do you have a question? Is there a question?

Mr KNOLL: Sure.

Ms Chapman: You ask, 'Do you think this amendment is meritorious?' and I will say yes.

The CHAIR: Are you going to move your lips while he speaks, deputy leader?

Mr KNOLL: Can the deputy leader confirm that both prior to and post the introduction of the late night code, the reduction in violence in the metropolitan area where there are no late-night venues was actually greater than the reduction in violence in the CBD venues where the late night code of practice is in force?

Ms CHAPMAN: I think I asked for the question.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I am moving the amendment.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

The CHAIR: You get the last word. How is that? I will give you the last word. It is like a tag team here.

Ms CHAPMAN: I thank the member for Schubert for his very important question. Again, there has not been a demonstrated reduction to support the need for this three-hour trade restriction. Yes, I do thank the member for Schubert for that question and I note that, implicit in his comments, he is going to support my amendment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What a surprising exchange there was between the mover and the member for Schubert on that one! I do not actually understand what is wrong with the proposition that, for example, between 5 o'clock in the morning and 8 o'clock in the morning, it is not unreasonable to have a rest from drinking and have a skinny latte or whatever the young people have these days.

We used to have a cappuccino. We did not even do that really: we had a Nescafe, and if we were lucky, we could find a bit of sugar. That is what we used to have, or we would re-use the teabag we had last night. We lived in simpler times. The point is that nothing really good happens after 5 o'clock in a licensed venue if they are still drinking. For goodness sake, if you have not had enough to drink by 5 o'clock, what benefit are you going to gain between five and eight? Why not have a spell? Why not have a—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: A glass of water.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —a glass of water or maybe even have a lie down and then get back into it again at 8.30 when you have freshened up? It is as though the world is ending because people cannot attempt to blow up their liver between 5 o'clock and 8 o'clock in the morning, for goodness sake.

Mr Anderson recommended this. Okay, we changed it from nine in the morning. Let's be more honest about this and target the part of the day we are most concerned about. As for the fact that it does not apply to all venues, if the opposition wishes to move an amendment to include the Casino, I am happy to see them do that. I will take it back to my people and we will see what they say, but they have not moved that amendment.

The other silly thing is: 'If you're going to have a three-hour break, let them work out which three hours.' The member for Bragg must think we came down in the last shower. Obviously, the three hours they pick are between 11 o'clock in the morning and 2 o'clock or between midday and 3 o'clock when they are home getting changed ready for the next big night out. This is a completely reasonable proposition. It impacts on very few people and the people it does impact on are the people who consistently have been associated with the sort of behaviour we are trying to moderate.

Mr Knoll: That you have given us no evidence of.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If you want evidence about bad behaviour in venues, do not take it from me—speak to the Commissioner of Police. He has a very clear view about this. We have been making no secret about this. We have the declared precinct legislation we have put around the place. We are doing a number of things to try to improve the safety for the public and at the same time stop the transparently unsafe process of people drinking around the clock.

The CHAIR: Member for Davenport, you have a question, do you?

Mr DULUK: I do.

The CHAIR: On clause 26?

Mr DULUK: Yes, I do have a question to the deputy leader, and perhaps the Attorney in time might want to respond. Why is the Casino currently exempt from these rules?

The CHAIR: A really good question.

Mr DULUK: Before I finish, why is the Casino currently exempt, and why has the government not seemed to create a uniform playing field for all licensed venues in South Australia?

The CHAIR: Could this be a Dorothy Dixer from the other side—an opposition question?

Ms CHAPMAN: It is a question of wonderment. Why is it that the Casino has special arrangements? The information I have been given by the government is that they entered into a contractual arrangement with the Casino for their right to be able to occupy. I know a little bit about the Casino Act because my father crossed the floor and voted with the government to pass the Casino bill, one of three opposition members to do that—and he was given lifetime membership of the Casino, actually. I think that it has been a worthy institution, in the sense of providing a service to allow gambling facilities in a fixed venue with lots of security. Implementing a venue of that nature for the protection of the public I think has been an important initiative.

It is appalling that in the last 30 years it has graduated from a gambling venue to what is effectively a house full of poker machines—well over a thousand of them. I think that is appalling. For a number of years there have been various areas within the Casino—restaurants and other facilities—that obviously provide services of food and beverage to the patrons. That is great, but personally I think that it has deteriorated in what it offers South Australia because of the explosion of poker machines.

While I have heard minister after minister in this government while I have been here tell us about the importance of reducing poker machines—I think we went from 40 down to 32 at one stage; every hotel across the state had to have a buyback arrangement and we had long debates about that—what has happened on the other side in the Casino has been an explosion of poker machines.

We all know that government revenue is heavily subsidised by gaming revenue in this state. From memory, about $400 million a year is received as part of our state tax revenue, which is a very significant portion of our income as a state. Governments do not like to give away any advantage they have in that continued revenue. I get that. Treasurer after treasurer tells us that, but why should it continue to have the privilege of no change in the rules in relation to hours of service or times that it might need to close and the like?

The reason, historically, that has been put to me by government is that they have entered into these lease arrangements, that to breach those contractual arrangements would somehow interfere with their rights and that therefore there would be a financial consequence to the government and therefore to the taxpayers. On the face of it, I understand that. What really annoys me is that we have been asked to continue to treat the Casino separately, yet independently of that negotiations continue with the government and the Casino (I think still owned by SkyCity, the New Zealand company) to renegotiate these terms.

Never once, that I know of has anyone from the government come to the opposition and say, 'Look, we're renegotiating the terms under the Casino Act with the proprietors of this venture, and we now want to put in some rules which might provide some uniformity to all those who might be trying to have secure venues for the sale of alcohol', or, indeed, other issues in relation to gaming. They are a protected group because of this contractual arrangement.

So I think the government has been very unfair to South Australians to not come back to the parliament and say, 'We're going to be renegotiating this contract. It's a very significant venture in South Australia. Now is the time to have the chance to put in a submission as to whether there should be any amendments to the terms of that lease.' I am not sure what the current lease is, but I think they have another 35 years or something under a new contract, relatively recently renegotiated, on which the ink has now dried.

I think the answer to the member for Davenport's question will be that it will be in breach of the contract and there will be a financial consequence to South Australians if that interferes with any of their rights of trading arrangements, under the conditions of the lease and licensing arrangement. I may be wrong and the Attorney can set me straight, I am sure, if there is some other reason, but that is all I see. They are a protected species, and we have never had an opportunity to be informed as to how we might renegotiate their terms.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, this is really taking an unexpected turn. First, on gaming reform, we put up proposals in about 2013, if I remember rightly, that were directed towards getting rid of a large number of poker machines. That had the support of the AHA, if I recall correctly, at that time; they certainly were not up in arms about it. It would have meant that there were going to be major venues, minor venues. It would have provoked a lot of trading, and it would have made the Casino actually have to participate in those things.

As it turned out—and I do not want to speak ill of the departed from this chamber—the former member for Davenport became transfixed by the wily Bill Cochrane and saw to it that that very creative piece of legislation was terminated in a most unseemly fashion in another place. That is in answer to the question about doing things about gambling reform. As to the Casino, there is something a bit Lady Macbeth about this. If the opposition are so upset by the present position of the Casino—

Mr Knoll: Just pointing out the hypocrisy—

The CHAIR: Order, the member for Schubert!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —let them draft an amendment and bring it in. Then let us see what happens.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, no, no, no. I listened very carefully, as I always do, to the deputy leader, and one of the grounds upon which she objects to the current clause 26 is that it makes a distinction for the Casino. She was saying that, were it not that it made a distinction for the Casino, she would not be so upset about it, but it is setting up a two-tiered system. If that is her objection, she is perfectly at liberty, here or elsewhere, to try to take that out and let us see what happens.

As far as I am concerned, the general proposition remains that a three-hour break in 24 hours for people to have a couple of lemonades, a glass of water or even a coffee is not unreasonable. It is recommended by Mr Anderson. If the opposition are really objecting to the notion that the Casino misses out, they know how to organise parliamentary counsel to put forward a proposal that would deal with that, so let them do it. In the meantime, we are not budging on this.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 18

Noes 21

Majority 3

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 27 to 52 passed.

Clause 53.

Mr KNOLL: The community impact test is replacing the needs test. The community impact test happens interstate, in New South Wales, as it exists now. It is been put to me that before there were applications that were not subject to the needs test, and the majority were not. Unless you were a bottle shop or a pub, you were not subject to the needs test. The number one aim of this bill is to try to reduce red tape. Before, for the vast majority of licences, you had a situation where a test of some description was not necessary; if that application went in, it was not objected to. The application most times passed, unless the commissioner or the judge had some sort of issue.

We are now going to see that everybody needs to put in a community impact assessment. Can the Attorney give any sort of understanding of how comprehensive that is going to be? Is it something that a professional is going to need to undertake? What I am trying to get at is that before we had the ability for a series of licences to quietly go through, whereas now we are adding red tape to a lot of licences through the application of this community interest test.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer to that question is this: it will be applicable to hotel licences; some club licences, which are the big club licences; on premise, in effect bottle shop licences; and then there will be a discretion vested in the commissioner to apply the test in circumstances prescribed in the guidelines otherwise. These guidelines are not going to be universally applied to all licence applications. Again, as is consistent with this whole legislation, the idea of the impact test is that the higher impact licences will be the ones that will be involved in these tests, not the really low impact licences.

Mr KNOLL: To confirm, general hotel licence, yes; on premises, yes; residential, no; restaurant and catering, no; club, only for the big guys; yes to the packaged liquor; no to the production and sales; and no to small venue.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Subject to—yes.

Mr KNOLL: Except for the discretion.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Except for the discretion.

Mr KNOLL: I note that in an application the test must have regard to the cultural, recreational, employment and tourism impacts, the social impact and harm that might be caused. These are questions that would be difficult for a layperson to answer. For instance, in the same way that, if you have a planning approval, you need to answer whether this going to impact on the traffic and you have to get a professional to do a traffic report and a sound engineer to come and do a sound report, is it the case that if you are subject to having to do this test you will have to go to somebody who makes a career out of doing community impact assessments on behalf of prospective licence applications?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Anybody who is applying for an affected licence—and I think we have already established the affected licences are the more significant licences not the minor ones—would be more than capable of arguing or at least speaking to the commissioner, who is the determining authority in this circumstance not the court and the licensing authority about those matters. We are coming at it from this point of view: if you look at it philosophically, the old needs test formulation was a restraint of trade proposition. It was basically saying, 'We've got a market and we don't want you in our market.' That is effectively what it was about. We got rid of petroleum licences and all these other things years ago that do the same sort of thing.

We are changing the emphasis from a restraint of trade clause in the hands of existing businesses into a situation where we are saying to the community, 'It's not just about whether that business wants competition or not. It is about whether you, the people who live here, are going to be impacted by what this business is proposing.' It is a much more engaged process than the previous one from the community's perspective. I do not think it is unreasonable that somebody who is proposing to do one of the things that is captured here should be at least capable of addressing those matters; if they are not, maybe they should not be a licensee.

Mr KNOLL: My final question and I will ask—

The CHAIR: No, you have already had your final question, but I will give you one more.

Mr KNOLL: I am trying to understand where this question should be asked, but I will ask it here. Attorney, it has been put to me that we have a situation where we have to transfer rights to this new licensing regime and that in some instances those rights are expanded. Has there been any understanding of whether or not there is conflict between a licence condition and a planning approval? We have planning approvals for most of these licence holders that are existing and in place; in varying the licence conditions of the licensees, is there going to be a conflict and how does that play?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is a very, very good question and this is one of those perennial problems in the area here. If you are not careful, you wind up with two licensing authorities acting independently of each other and one does not know what the other is doing and each one is guessing what the other is going to do. It is terrible and frustrating and not good for anybody.

When we put the planning bill through a year or so ago, one of the things I asked the commissioner to do was to look at the planning bill with a view to seeing how he could ensure that the planning bill was constructed in such a way that planning did not get in the way of liquor licensing and vice versa. You may not recall it now, but there was a provision in the planning bill that actually talked about other licensing arrangements. I am advised that the combination of the planning amendment we put in 12 months ago and the way this is constructed minimises the chance of that problem occurring, but I think that it is something we have to continue to watch.

Mr KNOLL: What is going to happen is that as the commissioner goes through the licences he may or may not find some sort of inconsistency and that at the point at which he finds an inconsistency we are going to have to deal with it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You are talking about the retrospective stuff rather than going forward, are you?

Mr KNOLL: Most of the 6,500 licensees have existing planning conditions.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: In terms of those 6,500, yes, there is going to have to be some work done. I am looking through that. The transitional provisions will enable the commissioner to 'cleanse', I think is the term being used, the licensing conditions to make them all consistent with the planning regime. This is potentially still a problem, but we think we fixed it going forward.

Clause passed.