Bills

Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 September 2018.)

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (15:46): I rise to speak on the Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill and indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. The bill deals with a very serious issue in terms of our state. Very significant powers and restrictions are being proposed in the bill, but that is for a very important reason. Sadly, it is because of the abuse of alcohol within communities in our state—something that I think we all need to take very seriously and have very appropriate responses to.

This is the second time that this house of parliament has debated and will have passed this legislation. The bill was introduced in largely the same form by the previous government. It was introduced on 27 September 2017, passed this chamber of this parliament and went to the other place on 14 November 2017. Sadly, it did not pass before the election and we have had it now reintroduced into this house. It is yet another sign that the apparently 'strong agenda for real change' from the government is actually about reintroducing bills that we had from the previous parliament to the point that we rose early last night because there was not enough business for the government to deal with.

However, I am glad that the government has reintroduced the bill, although it is now seven or eight months down the track since the election, because this is an important reform. It was introduced originally by the member for Enfield, the former attorney-general, and, in doing so, was a device to help manage what is the serious issue of alcohol abuse in this state.

Unfortunately, we do see the unlawful distribution and sale of alcohol in remote Aboriginal communities. This is more commonly known as 'grog running'. The unlawful sale of liquor and supply of liquor into remote Aboriginal communities have significant side effects and often leads to serious alcohol-related harm, including violence, disorder, antisocial behaviour and medical problems for those communities.

Deputy Speaker, as you particularly would know, given your electorate, we have a number of dry communities in this state for very important reasons, and those people who seek to get around those dry restrictions in those communities are the target of this legislation. Unfortunately, those people who seek to get around those restrictions are led to those social harms, violence and health effects.

As I said, this legislation was introduced but unfortunately did not pass previously and, as the Attorney-General in her contribution has indicated, this is largely similar to the bill that was introduced by the Labor government that did not pass. However, there are two differences between the bills. Firstly, this Liberal bill sets the designated area boundary at 20 kilometres. The designated area boundary in the Labor bill was 100 kilometres. Secondly, the Liberal bill does not include the power for police to stop, search and detain vehicles without suspicion within certain areas. That is a provision that was originally in the first bill; the Attorney-General has taken it out of this bill.

I think it is not the first time that we have seen from this Attorney-General a reluctance to give the police more powers in carrying out their duties. I am minded to think in particular of what happened in relation to the previous drug-driving bill that this parliament dealt with and also the bill that we are seeking to have debated by this parliament, which, sadly, continues to be adjourned by the government, in relation to giving police the power to search vehicles where there is a positive drug test. It seems very straightforward and very sensible.

The community has given broad support for that but, sadly, the Attorney-General is vehemently opposed to that measure. It is something that we know that the police want; I can attest to that as the former police minister. The police want, need, and think that it is very important for them to have that power. I will ask about the removal of this power for the police in relation to this bill when we come to the committee stage. Also, in the committee stage we might unpack the consultation that the Attorney-General has undertaken to ensure that these measures have the support of all stakeholders, and why this amended version of the bill is preferred to the original one that was passed by this chamber only a year ago.

Unfortunately, we all know the damage that alcohol does in remote Aboriginal communities. That is why it is important for us to pass this legislation which, as I said, is very serious in terms of the penalties that would apply, very serious in terms of the powers the police would have and very serious in terms of the restrictions that would be in place. It is important that dry communities stay dry and that people do not find a way to work around them.

What this means is that the current powers that the police have, and the current provisions in the APY Land Rights Act, the MT Land Rights Act and the ALT Act are not sufficient. The bill before us introduces new measures that should assist police and communities to deal with grog running. With those words, I once again indicate my support and the opposition's support for this bill, as it was when we previously introduced it when we were in government, and commend it to the house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (15:52): I rise to commend the bill to the house. I have listened carefully once again to the remarks of the member for Kaurna as the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill. The member for Kaurna has described the bill, appropriately in my view, as one of seriousness and one involving matters about which we all ought think carefully and deeply about in this place.

It is appropriate in addressing those remarks that reflection might be had upon the contribution just a few moments ago of the member for Mawson who, as one voice on the opposition benches, seems to think that debate in this place is—and I think I am not inaccurately quoting the member for Mawson—not worth a toss to people out there. That is not a view that I take and it is not a view that members of the government take. I hope it is not a view that the member for Kaurna takes, but it seems to be the view of at least the member for Mawson. Serious debate, reflection on legislation, is indeed necessary and debate in relation to this bill is no exception.

Secondly, it is appropriate that mention be made, in the context of the seriousness of legislation that is brought before the house, of the bill that was rushed into the house yesterday by the opposition. It was a bill that would have the effect of amending one of the most important pieces of legislation in the state, the Sentencing Act, to be done at a moment's notice in an atmosphere of frenzy and anxiety and really very much the opposite of the—

Mr PICTON: Point of order: firstly it is irrelevant. Secondly, it is also referring to another bill currently before the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, you will contain your remarks to the bill at hand.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I will confine my remarks to the bill at hand. We have, I am afraid and sorry to say, examples that exhibit a lack of attention to the necessary seriousness of debate in this place and an atmosphere that has been whipped up of reaction and anxiety, both of which are entirely inappropriate.

It is entirely apposite to the circumstances in which this bill comes before the house. This 2018 bill that was brought to the house promptly in the early months of this new government differs in material respects from the 2017 bill that was brought before the house by the previous government. That includes, as the member for Kaurna has referred to, proposed section 21OE that would have granted police with powers to stop and search a vehicle within the designated area.

In my view, those powers and that provision that was contained in the 2017 bill are appropriately not included in the bill that is before the house. Just to be clear for those who are following the debate and for those who were not engaged in the debate last year, the bill in 2017 would have granted powers to police to require the driver of a vehicle to stop their vehicle, to detain the vehicle and to search the vehicle, and any persons or property in or on the vehicle, for liquor.

Those powers were to have applied where a vehicle was in a designated area and for the purposes of ascertaining whether the provisions of the relevant part—the relevant liquor being transported or supplied—were being complied with or contravened. Importantly, those powers were to have applied without police having formed any suspicion or ascertained any reason other than those threshold tests.

In my view, in the passage of time and in the course of further consideration, it has appropriately now come to a point where the bill that is currently before the house, containing the range of serious, onerous and special provisions that will affect citizens of this state and in ways that are particular and special, goes no further than is appropriate. Insofar as they have the effect of curtailing freedoms and liberties, they do so no more than is reasonably necessary.

So to the extent that the member for Mawson and the member for Kaurna would reflect upon these questions—indeed, about the seriousness of debate or its necessity or the appropriateness of it—I say to them and to those opposite that we are not here to play rhetorical games or take some sort of superficial advantage in relation to what is legislation of a very serious nature in regard to very serious subject matter. We are here to legislate in order to improve outcomes for all South Australians. We ought not be legislating with a view to any other outcome. We ought not stand up and speak in this place with a view to scoring cheap points one way or the other. If we are going to engage in debate, we should do so in a spirit of seriousness and inquiry.

The member for Kaurna raised a difference between the contents of the 2017 bill and the bill that is presently before the house. It is an important difference and, in my view, it is a difference that is properly brought about and the result of reflection. I commend the government for the contents and shape of the bill as it is presented.

The bill is titled in terms of its being an amendment to the Summary Offences Act insofar as it relates to liquor offences, but it might just as appropriately have referred to the three other pieces of legislation to which it contains amendment, those being the Criminal Investigation (Covert Operations) Act 2009, the Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Act 2007 and the Liquor Licensing Act 1997. I will come to each of those in a moment. The amendments to those acts are contained in the schedule to the bill.

The bill has the effect of creating a number of new summary offences for conduct relevant to the designated area in relation to the unlawful sale of liquor. I understand that this is commonly known as 'grog running'. It is a matter that has sadly, over a long period of time, blighted the areas and the communities that are the subject of the bill. Endeavours have been made over a long period of time to do more and to do all that is possible, via a range of measures, to address and improve the situation. They have included social initiatives, health initiatives and community engagement. To this extent at least, those initiatives—properly, in my view—include enforcement measures that find voice in the Summary Offences Act and would find further voice as the result of the bill.

The bill creates a new summary offence in relation to possession/transportation of liquor for sale. That is under new section 21OB. Secondly, in relation to the supply and related matters of liquor in certain areas, which will be under new section 21OC, the bill sets out the scope of the designated areas and makes provision in relation to evidence and evidence-gathering in the act, and contemplates further regulation being made.

Before I reflect on the effect of those new offence provisions, as I referred to at the outset, it might also properly refer to the other three pieces of legislation that are also amended as a result of this bill. The first is the Criminal Investigation (Covert Operations) Act 2009. The effect of the amendment in this regard is to bring within the definition of 'serious criminal behaviour' an offence against section 29 of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 and, further, to bring the new offences that are the subject of this bill, which will be contained in the Summary Offences Act, within the definition of 'serious criminal behaviour'.

Further, the bill amends the Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Act 2007 by ensuring that the conduct that is the subject of the new offence provisions in sections 21OB and 21OC is also caught. Importantly, the third of those affected pieces of legislation is the Liquor Licensing Act 1997. Section 29 of the act is amended so as to ensure that an occupier or a person in charge of premises who knowingly permits the sale of premises is guilty of an offence.

Secondly, if a prescribed person sells liquor to another person while reasonably believing that person intends to sell the liquor, in contravention of subsection (1), and that other person in fact sells the liquor in contravention of subsection (1), then an offence will have been committed. This will mean that one piece of legislation is coherently speaking to the other.

The overall effect of this omnibus extension of the Summary Offences Act and its related legislation is not only to create the additional offences but to add practical investigative tools to assist in the investigation and prosecution of offenders. Those further investigative tools are provided for judiciously in the sense that they speak to the newly created offences.

As I said at the outset, they do not go so far as to create what might very well be, in effect, a de facto rod for the back of police who had the provision the subject of the 2017 bill carried forward been finding themselves in circumstances where there was no threshold and where anybody driving a vehicle in a designated area was, or would have been, without further reference, potentially the subject of powers of search and forfeiture and so forth, as I have outlined at the commencement of these remarks.

So we have new offences coupled with new and practical investigative tools and together they make a regime—and I feel that I have found myself repeating these remarks in relation to a number of different subject matters—now designed and structured to ensure as far as possible that we are not in legislating in this place concerned with appearances, superficiality or rhetoric. We are concerned to know that the measures that we take are directed towards real outcomes for real people in real communities for the daily lives that people are living—in this case, in the designated areas that are the subject of the legislation.

If there is any message of broad application that might be drawn from the contribution we have heard in relation to this bill today from the member for Kaurna, or more particularly the reflections by the member for Mawson a few moments ago, it is that serious consideration of legislation by a government committed to outcomes for the community in South Australia is what this place is all about. It is what the purpose of debate in this place is all about. That is the outcome of that process in this case, and I commend this bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:12): I rise to support the Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill 2018. What we are doing with this piece of legislation is to reform the unlawful sale of liquor and the supply of liquor to vulnerable communities where the consumption of liquor is prohibited. What we have seen over time is what has been called grog running, and that has been the term used for the unlawful supply and sale of liquor in dry areas.

The grog running trade often leads to alcohol-related harm, including serious violence, disorder, antisocial behaviour and medical problems for vulnerable communities. Only this morning in this house we were talking about the scourge of domestic violence. Domestic violence is not just attributed to these communities we are talking about here in regard to grog running and the sale of alcohol illegally. We know it is a scourge right across society.

What we are attempting to do here is to reduce that harm, whether it is violence and disorder or domestic violence. We have already learnt from trials of the welfare card, especially around Australia and certainly in the Ceduna area. I want to acknowledge former mayor Alan Suter, who did not renominate. He served 12 years in that council area, in the member for Flinders' electorate, and bravely stood up for the rights of his citizens when he fully supported the trial of the commonwealth welfare card.

My understanding of that card is that 80 per cent of Centrelink money can go to buying goods at designated stores and then 20 per cent goes as cash for the person to have some free money. Some people thought that this was a rather harsh measure, but it is interesting as time goes on how it has been trialled in other areas, and my understanding is that it has worked.

I have travelled through the outback on many occasions, and I have travelled through the West Coast and Eyre Peninsula heading to Western Australia and back multiple times. I have also travelled through to the north of Australia, and I have seen the effects on people having free range to buy alcohol and what the effects can be on society.

Obviously, what the commonwealth welfare card has attempted to do and what we are attempting to do as another process here is to put some management in place so that we can have better outcomes for society as a whole. It does not matter where the community is, wherever a community is impacted, if there are measures that can be put in place so that we have better outcomes in that localised community it will mean better outcomes for society as a whole.

We are talking about the issues of domestic violence. Obviously, if we can reduce that at any level with the hope of wiping it out one day—no matter where it is—it would be a great thing. When it comes to any antisocial behaviour where people are not able to manage their alcohol and are tempted to commit other crimes, and just general antisocial behaviour, we need to do what we can to make sure that we can assist the good citizens of this state on getting the right outcomes.

Another issue we have is the medical problems that can come with the abuse of alcohol, whether it is direct brain health or kidney failure. We have had various programs with dialysis all around the state to assist people who need access to kidney dialysis machines. People have renal failure, and we see this right across communities. I know that there are programs in the Far North and outback areas to service these communities.

I reflect on the call that we have on issues around the availability of dialysis, and even in my own electorate of Hammond where we have some units at Murray Bridge, which are utilised by people from the local area, from the Mallee, from Strathalbyn and up around Mount Barker. What I see there and what I see throughout all our communities, including our outback communities, is the need for more dialysis as we see more medical problems through various factors that have affected people's kidney function, with one of them certainly being the abuse of alcohol.

The South Australian government certainly does have legislative restrictions to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related harm in regional communities. These restrictions are focused on the Aboriginal communities predominantly, and include conditions on high-risk liquor licences under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, which limit the amount of specific liquors that can be purchased per person, per day and restricts the type of liquor sold completely for off-premise consumption, with specific communities being prohibited under legislation from possessing and consuming liquor on the lands, with some exemptions, mind you. These communities include the APY lands, the Umoona community and the Yalata Reserve.

Certainly, discussions with the relevant agencies highlight that current strategies designed to combat grog running are not sufficient. I am aware that in certain places around Australia, including Darwin, if you go there and you want to buy some alcohol you have to produce your licence and they keep a record of what you have bought, and this is replicated across communities in a similar fashion through South Australia. It is one way of reducing that harm to people in these communities.

We are creating new offences in the Summary Offences Act 1953 relating to possessing or transporting liquor for the purpose of sale with a rebuttable presumption that possession above a prescribed quantity of liquor is for the purpose of sale. If someone is driving through the outback with a ute or a small truck or a larger truck fully loaded with alcohol, they are obviously not just going away for a weekend of relaxation on their own. There is a fair chance that they might be having a look at grog running and being a reseller without a licence.

That is where we get to a new offence in the Summary Offences Act 1953 for a person who supplies liquor or possesses or transports liquor with intention to supply it to a person in a dry community. That is the nub of the question. The reason why we have these designated dry communities is so that we know exactly where the liquor is not supposed to be. If it is there, it should be a reasonably transparent case that someone is breaking the law. The designated areas are determined by the minister and must not be more than 20 kilometres from the boundary of a prescribed area.

There is another new offence that will be created in the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 for a holder of a licence who sells liquor to a person reasonably believed to be an unlicensed seller intending to sell the liquor and the unlicensed seller then sells that liquor on. Another new offence to be created in the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 is for an occupier or person in charge of premises who knowingly permits the unlicensed sale of liquor on those premises. With this legislation, we are trying to cover all the bases of this unlicensed management of liquor sales, whether it is someone transporting it, whether it is someone onselling it or whether it is someone trying to market this liquor from an unlicensed premises.

This bill does differ from the one the former government introduced in a few ways. Firstly, the limit in relation to a designated area of land, referred to in proposed section 210D(3), has been reduced from 100 kilometres to 20 kilometres. We saw the 100-kilometre limit as excessive and unnecessary, as it would obviously encompass a very large geographical area.

In regard to going back to 20 kilometres, South Australia Police have stated that this area is still entirely workable and will assist in stopping grog running. Obviously, it would have been much more difficult to manage areas of up to 100 kilometres, which is five times what the legislation is bringing it back to now. I think that is where we have to be absolutely realistic in moving legislation like this, so that the regulators, being the police force in this area, have a designated and realistic area to manage amongst all the other duties they must perform in these outer areas of the state.

Secondly, some of the additional police powers have been removed, in particular the police power to stop a vehicle, detain and search a vehicle and direct a person to open any part of the vehicle without reasonable suspicion. As I indicated, that has been removed from this bill. We on this side of the house believe that these powers are excessive and that the power of police to stop, search and detain should be the same for every other offence, which can already be managed with the powers as designated under the Summary Offences Act 1953.

As the government, we on this side of the house believe that the current powers in the Summary Offences Act 1953 achieve an appropriate balance between the need for police officers to enforce the law and for community members to go about their daily activities without fear that they will be stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion. In regard to that, South Australia Police have stated that the powers they already hold are sufficient.

I think we have to be careful with this legislation in that we do not go over the top and people think that it is a total police state, that they cannot leave their community without fear or favour and that, for virtually no reason, they can just be pulled over, detained, have their car searched and go through the process. As I have already indicated, we already have those powers under the Summary Offences Act 1953, so we certainly do not believe there needs to be a duplication in this legislation to put those powers into place.

This bill addresses issues that are still current after previously being tabled in the parliament. To round up my contribution, as I indicated before, the reforms that this bill contains create new offences and provide additional investigative powers to reduce the incidence of the unlawful sale of liquor and supply of liquor to vulnerable communities. I think that is the most important part of this legislation, and that is in place where the possession and consumption of liquor are generally prohibited. As has been indicated in contributions here today, this is colloquially known as grog running, and the grog running trade often leads to alcohol-related harm.

I discussed this earlier in my contribution. It includes serious violence, which obviously can be and is domestic violence at times; general disorder; antisocial behaviour; and the resultant medical problems for many who live in vulnerable communities. That is a cost to all society. The antisocial behaviour is a cost for the police force. The social cost is a cost for families. Obviously, there are medical costs for these communities to get the appropriate requirements for the medical needs of the people affected by the abuse of alcohol, either directly or indirectly, through antisocial behaviour, whether that be violence or just being generally antisocial. Part of what we are doing with this legislation is to offset a lot of those issues.

There has been consultation over many years—well over a decade—where community members, particularly parents, are concerned about the consumption of liquor and the criminal activities that often arise with such behaviour. It has become clear that these communities are seeking protection for children and protection from the family and domestic violence that often follow the excessive consumption of alcohol. It is good to see that a lot of the people in these communities acknowledge that there is a need to protect the vulnerable in their communities, whether it be the children, partners, wives, girlfriends or anyone else who suffers the after-effects of grog running. It is good to see that there are elders and senior people in these communities who want to do what they can to help themselves.

In regard to the consultation with relevant agencies, it is very sad that these current strategies designed to combat grog running are falling short—in some instances, a long way short—of meeting these challenges. Existing measures include those under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, such as offences, restrictive licence conditions on the sale and supply of liquor, and barring orders. In addition, both the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 and the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act 2013 contain provisions regarding the possession and consumption of liquor in specific areas.

In closing, it has become clear that new and different solutions need to be found in order to address the issue and effects of grog running in many remote communities, and the bill seeks to do so. I commend the bill.

Mrs POWER (Elder) (16:33): I am pleased today to rise in support of the Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill 2018. The bill reforms the unlawful sale of liquor and supply of liquor to vulnerable communities where the consumption of liquor is prohibited. Grog running, which refers to the unlawful supply and sale of liquor in dry areas, is a trade that often leads to alcohol-related harm, such as violence, disorder, antisocial behaviour, medical problems and domestic violence, and this is the case for some of our most vulnerable communities.

The South Australian government currently has legislative restrictions to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related harm in regional communities. These restrictions are predominantly focused on Aboriginal communities and include conditions on high-risk liquor licences under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 that limit the amount of specific liquors that can be purchased per person, per day and restrict the type of liquor sold completely for off-premise consumption. Specific communities are prohibited under legislation from possessing and consuming liquor on the lands, with some exemptions. These communities include the APY lands, the Umoona community and Yalata Reserve.

For some of us living here in metropolitan Adelaide, it is hard to perhaps grasp what it might be like on the lands or in certain communities that experience a high prevalence of alcohol-related harm. For me, as somebody who grew up in Alice Springs and spent most of my life there until I was a teenager and, as an adult, who visited the APY lands multiple times—which was an absolute honour that I am really grateful for—I have seen the devastating impacts that alcohol-related harm can have on individuals, families and communities. This bill, in looking to reform that and to reduce the supply of alcohol, is absolutely crucial.

What are we doing exactly? We are creating a number of new offences in the Summary Offences Act 1953 relating to possessing or transporting liquor for the purpose of sale. We are creating an offence for a person who supplies liquor, or possesses or transports liquor with the intention to supply it to a person in a dry community. We are also creating offences in the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 for a holder of a licence who sells liquor to a person reasonably believed to be an unlicensed seller, intending to sell the liquor and the unlicensed seller then sells that liquor.

In that same Liquor Licensing Act 1997, we are creating an offence for an occupier or a person in charge of premises who knowingly permits the unlicensed sale of liquor on those premises. We are sending a very clear message to the community, to those who are thinking about grog running or to those who want to benefit from the profit of the sale of alcohol to those who might intend to grog run, that this is not okay. It will not be accepted and, accordingly, it will be illegal to do so. Notably, this bill differs from the one the former government introduced in a number of ways.

First, the limit in relation to a designated area of land, referred to in proposed section 21OD(3), has been reduced from 100 kilometres to 20 kilometres. I know that there has been some debate about this and whether or not it goes far enough. It is important to keep in mind that when we are talking about communities on the APY lands they are so far from one another, they are so far from metropolitan Adelaide or towns such as Alice Springs, that the sense of distance is perhaps quite different from our sense of distance living in metropolitan Adelaide. We see that the 100-kilometre limit is excessive and unnecessary, as it would encompass a large geographical area. SAPOL has stated that this 20-kilometre area is still entirely workable and will assist in stopping grog running.

Secondly, some of the additional police powers have been removed. In particular, the police power to stop a vehicle, detain and search a vehicle and direct a person to open any part of the vehicle without reasonable suspicion has been removed. As somebody who has had the honour to visit the APY lands, I think it is probably quite good for those who have good intentions and who want to abide by the law to know that they are supported in that way. The reason we have done this is that we believe that these powers are excessive and that the power for police to stop, search and detain should be the same for every other offence, being powers in the Summary Offences Act 1953.

The government believes that the current powers in the Summary Offences Act 1953 achieve the appropriate balance between the need for police officers to enforce the law and for community members to go about their daily activities without the fear that they will be stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion. As I mentioned, I have certainly been in that situation myself, as I know a number of community members who live on the lands have been. They are there with good intentions and they should be respected, as anybody else would expect to be when living in metropolitan cities.

In short, alcohol restrictions can and do play an important role in any strategic approach to preventing and managing alcohol problems. Such strategies, however, raise at least two further questions: first, what else needs to occur to ensure that the restrictions genuinely enhance community capacity to manage alcohol? Second, what additional measures, apart from supply reduction, are required?

As I mentioned, as someone who has grown up in Alice Springs and has been very fortunate to visit the APY lands—I have visited Murputja, Pipalyatjara and Amata a number of times—I have witnessed firsthand the devastating impacts of alcohol in Aboriginal communities and on the lands. I understand it is a complex issue. It is a very important issue and it does need to be addressed, but it needs to be addressed at multiple levels.

I support this bill as one necessary measure to support communities to thrive. I look forward to seeing it being implemented and enforced in conjunction with those it impacts. I think the best outcomes are achieved when we work with the community—not for them, not against them, not imposing our way but working with them—to deliver positive outcomes. I commend the bill to the house.

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (16:40): I rise today in support of the Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill 2018. Unfortunately, the strategies that have been employed in our state so far to reduce the instances of grog running have not been sufficient, so there is a real need for new measures that law enforcement agencies can have at their disposable to combat grog running. Just to be clear, grog running is a general term for the sale of liquor in communities where liquor is generally prohibited, such as remote Indigenous communities.

I think it is important to understand the context around why such bans exists. Of course, particularly on this side, we obviously believe in personal freedoms and the freedoms of individuals, but there are occasions when some people take those freedoms in a way that can severely impinge on the freedoms of others. That is why it is important that we as a government step up to the plate and help support communities to protect the freedoms of others, often those who are more vulnerable.

Remote Indigenous communities face many challenges, of which alcohol is a significant fuel. The harmful use of alcohol contributes significantly to the burden of disease and social disadvantage for Aboriginal people. This harmful use contributes to community breakdown, violence, crime and incarceration, financial burden, poor mental health and wellbeing, hospitalisation, premature death and suicide. Risky drinking remains high among Aboriginal South Australians, with recent surveys finding that as many as 19.9 per cent of Aboriginal South Australians over the age of 15 drank at levels that put them at risk of disease over their lifetime. The mean age at which death in alcohol-related hospitalisations occurs in Aboriginal people is around 35 years.

Also, the rate of alcohol-related hospitalisations among the South Australian Indigenous population is three to four times higher than the overall South Australian population. Something that is important to note is that there are some very direct impacts of alcohol—drunken behaviour and the impact that that has, but there is also the impact that alcohol consumption, particularly at very extreme levels, can have on other health conditions. I certainly know through some of the previous work that I have done in my old career that alcohol has a very significant impact on the severity of some infectious diseases, some that are particularly prevalent throughout Australia but are much more likely to cause disease in remote Indigenous communities.

One I was familiar with was pneumococcal disease. This is a very serious condition that can manifest itself in a number of different ways. It is generally carried without causing any disease in the nose. Given there are such high rates of carriage, it means that, in effect, there are quite a lot of cases of pneumonia and invasive diseases such as blood infections, meningitis (an infection of the brain) and other very severe diseases that can very quickly lead to death. The rate of invasive pneumococcal disease in Indigenous communities, based on some of the more recent figures that I can recall, is roughly around one in 40 children, compared with more than one in 500 in the non-Indigenous populations.

Another thing to note here is that there are vaccines available to protect against some of the different types of this disease. In fact, the most common one used for children now covers about 13 of the most common types responsible for invasive disease, but there are more than 90. Whilst in the non-Indigenous population that vaccine does cover the vast majority of those cases, in Indigenous communities they tend to have different types. So the vaccine coverage is not quite as good, and you get many more outbreaks of types that are not necessarily covered. This is particularly the case with the seven-valent vaccine, which was the original one released in the early 2000s and which only covered seven diseases. The increase to 13 improved that a little bit, but it is still very much a risk in those parts of our country.

Another important disease that alcohol certainly facilitates is that of middle ear infections. Middle ear infections are described by some as being at epidemic levels in remote Indigenous communities. It is quite a big deal right across the country, with an enormous economic impact. Most kids will get a middle ear infection at some point in their life, but they tend to be acute and short lived and children move on relatively unscathed. Unfortunately, though, this is not the case in remote communities, where sometimes as much as 30 per cent of kids there can have chronic ear infections leading to hearing loss, which obviously contributes to significant disadvantage over the course of their life.

In fact, in the aftermath of some of those things we saw happening at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre in Darwin, a survey of Indigenous prisoners in Darwin and Alice Springs found that 90 per cent have hearing loss ranging from mild to severe. Some of these childhood infections, significantly enhanced by alcohol, have very serious and long-lasting impacts on these communities, so it is important that we do whatever we can to back up and support these communities.

Of course, as others have mentioned, too, the issue of domestic violence is also very significant. It is fuelled by alcohol in many Indigenous communities and has 34 times the rate of hospitalisation for domestic violence in non-Indigenous communities. Clearly, it is a very big deal. It is a very big difference from what the rest of the community suffers and is very significantly impacted by alcohol. There is also the issue of child abuse, which also occurs at very high rates and is very much related to alcohol consumption.

It is important to note that some of the most recent alcohol restrictions and bans were initially driven by Indigenous communities and their leaders, generally in the smaller communities. I think one of the first of these was in the late seventies. Often they do work very well when they are driven by local leadership. It is also important to recognise the significant impact of these restrictions and improvements on many of these communities, which have been reported in a number of different surveys.

For example, there have been significant reductions in alcohol consumption in those communities, particularly in parts of Queensland and northern Western Australia. They have seen reduced violence and much quieter communities. They do not have as many drunk people wandering around the streets, particularly on pay days, and there is less humbugging for money, cigarettes and other things.

Following these restrictions, there has also been a reduction in alcohol-related harm. Fitzroy Crossing Hospital saw a 36 per cent reduction in alcohol-related emergency admissions, as well as fewer alcohol-affected teenagers, and increased birth weights. There is also the issue of alcohol-related crime. There were surveys of rates of assault in Cape York Peninsula and areas of the Kimberley, and there has been quite a significant reduction in reported assaults, ranging from 10 per cent up to as much as a third in some jurisdictions. There has been reported better care of children and even a greater sense of hope.

Parts of Queensland have seen an increase in the number of families declaring their homes 'dry houses'. This reflects the growing awareness in the community of the issues around excessive alcohol consumption. Many people in these communities want their children to be safe and not to see drunken violence, and this has also been associated with an increase in school attendance.

This bill does a number of very important things. It creates several new offences in both the Summary Offences Act 1953 and the Liquor Licensing Act 1997. The insertion of part 3B into the Summary Offences Act creates offences relating to the possession and transportation of liquor if the possession or transportation is for the purpose of selling at an unlicensed venue, as well as offences relating to the supply of liquor to a person in a dry community.

Under this bill, it would become an offence for a person to possess or transport liquor for the purpose of selling it at a place where it would be unlawfully sold. Importantly, the person on whose behalf the liquor is being possessed or transported would also be committing an offence, as would someone who would derive an indirect financial benefit from the unlawful sale of the liquor being possessed or transported. There would also be a presumption, which an alleged offender would have the opportunity to rebut, that if the amount of liquor that is possessed or transported is more than a prescribed amount, it is presumed that the intention of the alleged offender was to sell the liquor.

Combined with a new provision contained in this bill that makes it an offence for a person to supply liquor to a person in a dry area or transport liquor with the intention to supply it to a person in a dry area, these two new categories will help to stamp out grog running in dry areas and can therefore reduce the devastating effects that alcohol can have in certain communities.

Further, this bill makes it an offence under the Liquor Licensing Act for an occupier or a person who is in charge of a premises on which liquor is sold without a licence to knowingly permit the sale of liquor. It will also be an offence for a person who is authorised to sell liquor to sell liquor to a person who the licensed seller reasonably believes, or ought reasonably to believe, intends to subsequently sell the liquor without a licence and then that person does so.

The measures in this bill significantly strengthen the laws that are intended to reduce, and ideally eliminate, instances of alcohol-fuelled violence and other problems in many remote South Australians communities, as I described earlier. I think that, given the strong support of many people in these communities, it is important that we do everything we can in this place to back them up with the appropriate legislation. I commend this bill to the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): The member for Flinders.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:54): Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker, and thank you for taking the chair to give me an opportunity to contribute to this bill. I am very pleased that this bill has made it back to this parliament. We, of course, debated it last year under the previous government. There have been some slight changes to that bill, but we supported it then and obviously we are putting it forward now, with changes, as a very important bill.

The bill is entitled Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill 2018. It reforms the unlawful sale of liquor and the supply of liquor to vulnerable communities where the consumption of liquor is prohibited. In particular, it relates to some of the more remote communities in our state, including the APY lands, which have been mentioned already; the Umoona community, near Coober Pedy; and the Yalata Reserve. The Yalata Reserve is within the electorate of Flinders and is of particular interest to me.

Grog running is a problem; it is a continuing problem. The communities that I have mentioned have chosen to be dry communities. They made a decision as a community to be dry, not to have alcohol on the community and on their premises, so we have to respect that. However, some have decided that they still need a drink and others have decided that they are prepared to supply that need, so therein lies the problem. 'Grog running' is the term used for the unlawful supply and sale of liquor in dry areas. It often leads to alcohol-related harm, including serious violence, disorder, antisocial behaviour and medical problems for vulnerable communities.

We are all familiar with the havoc that is wrought by alcohol and drug abuse, but in this case we are talking about alcohol abuse. Alcohol destroys lives. It could potentially destroy these communities. We need to give our service providers, and there are many—and I know Ceduna particularly well, where there are many service providers who are dealing with the issues raised by substance abuse within that town. Yalata is about 200 kilometres further west of Ceduna, but the draw is towards Ceduna for it services and the demand is particularly on the social services and the health services in that town.

SAPOL has been looking for extra abilities to counteract the grog running that occurs. The South Australian government currently has legislative restrictions to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related harm in regional communities. These restrictions are focused on the Aboriginal communities predominantly and include conditions on high-risk liquor licences under the Liquor Licensing Act which limit the amount of specific liquors which can be purchased per person per day and restricts the type of liquor sold completely for off-premise consumption.

Those alcohol outlets in and around Ceduna—the Ceduna Foreshore Hotel Motel, the Thevenard Hotel, the Penong Hotel, and I think it might extend even further than that but I stand to be corrected—certainly are under restrictions as to the sale of alcohol. For me, to buy alcohol at the Ceduna hotel, I need to provide identification. They view that ID and make a record of my purchase, so it is one in all in. Complaints that I have had in my office in relation to this are in regard to the online delivery of alcohol. Obviously, some have tried to order bigger quantities from bigger retail outlets that have online service delivery. I will not mention them, but the names will be familiar. Quite responsibly, those online outlets have chosen to respect the restrictions that have been put in place by this government.

Specific communities being prohibited under legislation from possessing and consuming liquor on the lands, with some exemptions as I mentioned before, are the APY lands, Umoona community and Yalata Reserve. Consultation with relevant agencies highlights that current strategies designed to combat grog running are not sufficient. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.