LIQUOR LICENSING HOURS

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:46): I seek leave to make an explanation prior to asking the Leader of the Government a question about the Hon. Mike Rann's proposed lockouts at Adelaide's clubs and bars.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yesterday in this place I raised concerns that had been expressed to me by licensees who believed they were being pressured by police to sign supposedly voluntary administrative orders for a lockout of their clubs and bars in the Adelaide CBD. I gave the example of a particular licensee who had been visited on Friday and twice on Monday this week, who had told me that police had told him the lockout would happen, that he was one of the last to sign, and that if licensees signed it just meant that parliament would not have to pass legislation on this issue. Mr President, you will recall that the minister strongly disputed that, and effectively accused my constituent of lying to me regarding the nature of those discussions. I also indicated yesterday that the police statement, 'You are one of the last to sign,' was untrue, and that I knew a significant number of people had not signed.

On the front page of this morning's Advertiser, under the heading 'Pub curfew', senior police officer Chief Inspector Scott Duval confirmed that fewer than 80 of the 110 city venues, or just 70 per cent, had agreed to sign those voluntary lockout orders, which were set to begin in just two weeks. That is, 30 per cent of licensees had not signed the administrative orders for a supposedly voluntary lockout. Further on in the article Chief Inspector Duval said that a lockout would be successful only if all venues were involved.

As a result of this morning's publicity I have been contacted by representatives of other licensees, who have raised further concerns about this issue. I will speak about some of those on another occasion; however, the point I want to raise now is that the licensees indicated to me that they believed a significant number of licensees who had signed were licensees who were not trading beyond 3am in the Adelaide CBD at the moment, and that a significant number of those who had not signed were the ones currently trading beyond the proposed 3am lockout deadline. My questions to the minister are:

1. Given that police have revealed that about 30 per cent of CBD licensees have not signed these voluntary lockout agreements, does the minister now accept that South Australian police were not making accurate statements when they were telling licensees, 'You are one of the last to sign'?

2. Has the minister now been advised by police that the voluntary lockout cannot and will not be implemented by 1 July this year, as proposed in the voluntary agreements?

3. Is it true that a significant number of licensees who have signed the voluntary lockout agreements were, in fact, not even trading beyond 3am? If so, can the minister advise the exact number of licensees who signed the voluntary agreements who were not trading beyond the 3am curfew?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:49): The most recent information I have from police is that there were 101 venues within the city of Adelaide whose licence indicated their ability to trade after 3am that were sent letters by SAPOL and the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner. Ten of the venues have closed or are not currently operating, and four venues are confirmed restaurants with no entertainment, thus reducing the number of affected venues to 87. Of the 87, my advice is that 66 agree with the lockout (76 per cent); 11 do not agree (13 per cent); and 10 (11 per cent) are still to make a decision. It is interesting to note that, of the 11 that do not agree, eight of them are in Hindley Street, one in North Terrace, one in Pirie Street and one in Waymouth Street, Light Square. Those are the statistics.

It is rather interesting to note that, just over two years ago, when the Hon. Mr Lucas was the then leader of the opposition, he asked me a question, stating that he had met with a representative group of traders in Hindley Street. He asked: why will the minister not respond to the pleas for urgent meetings with the representatives of the Hindley Street traders and with the traders themselves to listen directly to their concerns about public safety issues on Friday and Saturday evenings in Hindley Street? There he was two years ago—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: As members will know, the police responded through Operation Hindley Safe at significant expense to taxpayers in view of additional police, overtime and everything else. A number of operations have been conducted within Hindley Street to make that area safe. It is interesting that the person who was most vocal in relation to calling for those additional police, as I understand it, is one of those individuals who is refusing to agree. He is probably the one to whom the Hon. Mr Lucas has been talking, no doubt. It is all very well for these people to say, 'Let us add significantly to the taxpayers' burden by having police, and ambulances as well, picking up all these young people who are totally inebriated.' Let us not put the fence at the top of the cliff, let us have the ambulance at the bottom.'

The Hon. Rob Lucas is doing this for votes; that is why he is on Facebook. It is quite clear that this is just an appeal where the broader interests of the state are set aside for Liberal Party self-interest. You can do that in politics, you are allowed to do it, but if you do it, you do not deserve any respect, none at all. That is the sort of calibre that we expect from members of the opposition. As those statistics show, it was not correct and I believe it is also incorrect that the police have been threatening the publicans in relation to this lockout in any way. If that is the only solution members of the opposition have to the problems we face of binge drinking amongst young people, then it could be that they do not care. What are the options? They either do not care—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: More police.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: There it is; it is on the record. They say the answer is more police. Do not worry if young people are binge drinking, damaging their own health and having fights. Do not worry about that, just have more police go out to correct it. I think that is a totally and utterly irresponsible attitude. This government believes that publicans have some responsibility. It is not just a question of making lockouts mandatory. I would remind the chamber that the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner has the capacity to insert conditions into liquor licences. I would expect that, if there are trading venues which are fuelling problems and which are not exercising their responsibilities correctly—that is, if they are serving intoxicated people and creating problems—then the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner would take action against those publicans, as we have seen happen in other areas where we have had these problems.

For instance, there has been a successful trial of lockouts at Glenelg. I wonder what all the honourable member's Liberal colleagues and the member for Morphett would think if his views were to prevail at Glenelg and the lockouts were not continued, and all the street violence that we had in the past at Glenelg returned. It has significantly diminished since there was a voluntary lockout. These irresponsible people are trying to undermine the attempts of the police of this state to reduce violence on the streets by having a voluntary lockout.

Incidentally this is a lockout that I understand the AHA has been supporting. It is a sad state of affairs not only that the opposition in this state should seek to undermine the attempts of the industry itself to achieve a lockout but that in the process is accusing our police of improper behaviour. It is a sad state of affairs indeed.