House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Bills Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill Committee Stage Committee Stage Debated resumed. Clauses 54 to 78 passed. Clause 79. Mr KNOLL House of Assembly Mr KNOLL: I agree with trying to streamline the process and the idea that we move from a system where an application is lodged, then there are objections and a licensee has to answer those objections, to a system of submissions where, if you have problems, you announce those problems up-front, it all gets presented before the judge or the commissioner on the day and they make a decision. I agree with that, and, to the extent that that is going to reduce vexatious issues in the system, that is a good thing. But I understand that one of the by-products is that, before, there was a conciliation process that happened in the course of a licence going through, and now, instead of there being mandatory conciliation, that is being pared back and it will only be used at the commissioner's discretion; is that correct? The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, your question does highlight a change. I think the reason for the change is that we do not want to have conciliation as a matter of necessity, as a step in the process, if circumstances are such that it is unnecessary. For example, we want the capacity where, if an application is basically a no-brainer, the commissioner is able to do it on the papers without doing anything further. If the commissioner looks at the papers and says, 'Maybe I need to talk to some people,' the commissioner, at his discretion, can call up a conciliation. If it gets even more complicated, then we have a hearing or whatever. The motivation is that if there is no need for a conciliation conference in reality because everyone knows where it is going, let us just cut to the chase and do what we have to do on the papers. Mr KNOLL House of Assembly Mr KNOLL: Is there an issue of process now that, if you want to lodge a submission, you have to lodge it, it says here, at least seven days—seven days is the minimum—before the day appointed for the determination or hearing of the application? So, at day X, seven days before, you have to put in your submissions. The submissions are in seven days before. The commissioner or judge looks at them and says, 'I have an issue,' just as you have described. Do they have to try, within that seven days, to hold a conciliation, or does that then delay the court date? Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I say, in answering the question, that even though I have not imbibed today, I am seeing two members for Schubert. I am not sure what that means. As best I can tell, the answer to the question is that, if the commissioner came to the view that he really needed more information, the commissioner could reschedule and move on in that way. Clause passed. Clauses 80 to 94 passed. Progress reported; committee to sit again.