House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Bills Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion). Mr TRELOAR House of Assembly Flinders Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:34): I resume my contribution on this very important Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill, and I have been talking particularly as to how this relates to the community of Yalata in the electorate of Flinders. We are creating new offences in the Summary Offences Act 1953 relating to possessing or transporting liquor for the purpose of sale with a rebuttal presumption that possession above a prescribed quantity of liquor is for the purpose of sale. We are also creating 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. Of course, the main driver of this activity is that there is money in it. There is great profit to be made in running grog to a dry community. Designated areas are determined by the minister and must not be more than 20 kilometres from the boundary of a prescribed area. I know that this has caused some discussion, and under the previous government's proposal it was suggested that the boundary must not be more than 100 kilometres from the boundary of the prescribed area, but ultimately that is a fair stretch. The 20-kilometre boundary gives SAPOL and police officers quite a clear indication of what might be occurring within that relatively small district. We are creating a new offence 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. This relates to a licensed liquor outlet in a town somewhere relatively nearby, although it does not have to be, but ordinarily it would be in close proximity to a community. Sales are made from that liquor outlet to a person whom they can reasonably believe to be intending to onsell it. This potentially leaves the licensed outlets in a difficult situation because ultimately they can never really know the intention, I guess. They need to act on suspicion. We are also creating a new offence in the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 for an occupier or person in charge of premises who knowingly permits the unlicensed sale of liquor on those premises. In other words, they deliberately do so. Notably, this bill differs from the one the former government introduced in the following ways, and I mentioned the prescribed area, which is reduced from 100 kilometres to 20 kilometres, and 100 kilometres from Yalata brings it back to Penong, whereas, if a vehicle was under suspicion and within 20 kilometres of a community, the police are more likely to pull it over and investigate what is inside that vehicle. SAPOL has stated that this area is still entirely workable and will assist with stopping grog running. We have to remember, and the member for Elizabeth would be familiar with this, that there are just four police officers west of Ceduna: two based at Penong and two based at Yalata, and beyond that there is nothing until Eucla, which is actually a Western Australian station. SAPOL is adequately represented, but it is not as though they are thick on the ground in the Far West, so they need to be given the ability to make this workable. Some of the additional police powers have been removed from the bill we saw presented last year, 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. In other words, there needs to be reasonable suspicion before they are asked to open the boot. The government believes that these powers were excessive and that the power of police to stop, search and detain should be the same for every other offence, being those powers in the Summary Offences Act. The government believes that the current powers in the Summary Offences Act 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 fear that they will be stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion. It is all about getting the right balance, and SAPOL have stated that the powers they hold are already sufficient. I believe this goes a long way towards addressing some of the issues that we find rife within these communities, and it is well overdue. I admit that the previous government had intentions of introducing this, but the previous parliament ran out of time. There have been some other moves within the Ceduna area and within Yalata to address some of the social issues around grog running. The cashless welfare card, which was introduced by the federal government, has been very topical and has not suited everyone, but I can guarantee the house that Ceduna is a different place for it. It means that those who are issued with a cashless welfare card are able to access just 20 per cent of their government payments in cash. This limits the amount of money that is available for grog, cigarettes and any other substance, gambling or anything else they may care to pursue. Yalata is an interesting community. It is inhabited by around 250 or 300 Anangu people, who were originally desert people. They were a tribe of the Pitjantjatjara and were caught up in the Maralinga test site in the early 1950s. In 1952, they were relocated from their Western Desert home down to Yalata, west of Ceduna, as a result of the British bomb testing. They found themselves relocated to a camp that was not their home, and it became very difficult for them. Sixty-five years on, any original inhabitants would be elderly and would barely have a memory of their homeland, but the call of home is strong. Oak Valley was established in 1955 and some of the Anangu people left Yalata to set up a new home there. It is further north and closer to their land, and they are much happier there. I have only visited Oak Valley once; I have of course visited Yalata on a number of occasions. My first official visit to Yalata was in 2011 when the previous government opened a new police station. Unfortunately, the previous station had burned down, so we ventured out and opened the new police station, which still stands as a beacon amongst the community. The Australian Army has been active at Yalata during the past year. Yalata was visited by prime minister Turnbull and minister Scullion prior to the Army's visit. Over the past 12 months, Yalata has received assistance from Army personnel and will also be receiving $7 million—including $1.1 million from this state government—for improvements in infrastructure, health and education services. It is a dynamic community. I would urge anyone who is driving past to ask, knock on the door and go in and say hello. Desley Culpin is CEO of the Yalata Anangu Aboriginal Community and she does a sterling job. She is well known amongst Adelaide people as she was a local and friends with a few of the MPs in this house. Pastor Russell Bryant, Chair of the Yalata Aboriginal Community, visited this place not too long ago, and we were lucky enough to meet with the Premier. The Premier is of course also the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and intends to visit Yalata and the Far West as soon as he can. They are doing a lot of work to reinvigorate tourism within the community. They manage the Head of Bight tourism attraction, which is growing in popularity each and every year. It is whale calving season from around May through to September, and thousands of people visit on an annual basis to see that activity. All in all, the community is going particularly well at the moment, and I think this piece of legislation will assist in the management of that community. Grog running will be less likely to occur, and if it is undertaken it is more likely to be caught. As such, it will have less of an impact on the lives of the people within the community. The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Premier Attorney-General The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:44): I thank all speakers for their contribution to this debate and indication of support from the opposition. I am confident that this legislation, if passed by this parliament, will do good for those people who are most vulnerable. I am pleased it is a matter that essentially has the blessing of those who are sought to be protected, those who have self-determined that they will be a dry area and they want to have protection. Bill read a second time. Committee Stage Committee Stage In committee. Clause 1. Mr PICTON House of Assembly Mr PICTON: In relation to clause 1, can the Attorney outline the following. Obviously, this bill was one that was previously passed by this chamber and this bill has now been presented with a number of changes. Can you outline what consultation has happened with the police in regard to the search and seizure powers being removed from the bill, and are the police supportive of that change of removing it from the bill? The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: From memory, I think I had two meetings with the police in relation to this matter, the original and their requests; some further consultation on another draft; and ultimately, they wrote confirming their support of the bill. Mr PICTON House of Assembly Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney outline what consultation process she went through with other stakeholders and what bodies were consulted in the drafting of this legislation? The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot account for those that were drafted when this bill was first presented— Mr PICTON House of Assembly Mr PICTON: The second time. The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —yes, the second time—but I am aware that submissions were received from SAPOL, the Law Society, the ALRM and the Aboriginal Lands Trust. I remember now writing to 12 different Aboriginal groups that we felt had an interest in the matter. Whilst there were the usual suspects, we felt this was a matter sensitive to a number of Aboriginal communities, so their representative bodies should be consulted. I think to the best of my knowledge there was no objection from them. Mr PICTON House of Assembly Mr PICTON: Can the Attorney provide between the houses the list of the organisations that were consulted, those 12 organisations? The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. They are not government agencies, so it does not apply to the normal arrangement with that, so I am happy for a list to be provided. Clause passed. Clauses 2 and 3 passed. Clause 4. Mr PICTON House of Assembly Mr PICTON: In relation to clause 4, can the Attorney outline what constitutes a designated area and does this capture all dry zones currently in place within South Australia? Is it possible to remove dry zones from being impacted by the provisions within the bill? The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Looking under clause 4, the definition of 'prescribed area means', I am advised that under (a) that cannot be changed by regulation but that (b), (c) and (d) could be. Mr PICTON House of Assembly Mr PICTON: Thank you. I am not sure if that answers all my questions, but I am limited to three questions so I will move on. In new section 21OD—Designated areas, the boundary has been reduced from 100 kilometres to 20 kilometres. Which stakeholders represented this need to occur? Why has the Attorney-General decided to make that change and has it received the support of all the stakeholders? The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The area essentially was originally presented by SAPOL. We had discussions about that. The member might recall, if he participated in the debate when the bill was before the parliament under the last government, that the issue of the area was an issue of concern. We had that as the subject of our discussions with SAPOL and ultimately they agreed to this. Mr PICTON House of Assembly Mr PICTON: In relation to 21OF, what regulations is the Attorney-General currently considering? The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If the member views subsection (6) of the proposed 21OB of this section, you will see that there is a reference there to what the amount of liquor possessed or transported is to be prescribed, and so it is necessary for us to have regulations to deal with that, and otherwise, as will be advised once the passage of the bill is determined. Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Mr ODENWALDER: I will go back to 21OD(3) regarding the reduction of the distance from 100 kilometres to 20 kilometres. You mentioned there was some unrest. I cannot remember your exact words, but there was some concern about that in the previous iteration of the bill. I wonder if you could tell me what those concerns were, assuming I did not read all the second reading speeches from the previous bill? The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The general feeling was around the extent of the application of the area—I think, from memory, it was 100 kilometres—and that was in the original bill of the previous government. We had discussions with SAPOL personnel about that and, as a result of that, they presented to us an alternative. This is the resolution of the amount. Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Mr ODENWALDER: I am sorry. I do not want to harp on about this, but I still do not understand what the concern was. I understand there were concerns that you discussed with SAPOL, but what were those concerns? Why was it changed? I understand that SAPOL ended up supporting it. I believe you. The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The extent of application of the act that this would apply to was greater than we thought should apply. We made that point when the bill was originally before the parliament. For whatever reason, obviously, I suppose it is a bit of an ambit claim with these things; nevertheless, SAPOL accepted that they would support the bill in its current form. Clause passed. Schedule 1. Mr PICTON House of Assembly Mr PICTON: I wonder if the Attorney can explain why defences for the new provisions included in part 3, section 29(3)(a) and (b) were not included but were similar to those provided for in the new section 210B—Possession, transportation of liquor for sale, which introduces defences in subsections (4) and (5)? The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Could you repeat the question? Mr PICTON House of Assembly Mr PICTON: I can. Can you explain why the defences for the new provisions included in part 3, 29(3)(a) and 29(3)(b) were not included but were similar to those provided for in the new section 210B—Possession, transportation of liquor for sale, which introduces defences in subsections (4) and (5)? The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They are different offences; therefore, they do not need the same defences. Schedule passed. Title passed. Bill reported without amendment. Third Reading Third Reading The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Premier Attorney-General The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:56): I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time and passed.