LIQUOR LICENSING (POWER TO BAR) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 October 2008. Page 434.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:42): This bill is very much like the curate's egg: there are some good parts to it, but other parts are quite awful. The Greens support that part of the bill which gives the police the power to bar persons from licensed premises when such barring is warranted by their behaviour, particularly offensive behaviour, or on welfare grounds. Proposed new section 125B provides the police with those powers. It is a sensible amendment because the police in other aspects of society are charged with the responsibility of enforcing appropriate standards of behaviour in public places, and it seems that that should extend to licensed premises as well. It also has the potential to take off some pressure on licensees where the barring order can be instituted by the police, which might provide a level of protection for licensees. Whilst they may be happy with the barring order, because the licensee is not the one who has made it, they might feel a little safer if they were to come across barred persons in the street.

The main concerns I have with the bill are in relation to the police power to bar based on criminal intelligence. This concept of criminal intelligence is creeping its way into South Australian legislation. We saw it first with the anti-terror laws, and a majority of members of parliament, whether here or in the commonwealth parliament, saw that it was a compromise they were prepared to make, to sacrifice some of our standards of criminal justice, to sacrifice some of the human rights we have come to expect and have acquired over centuries, in the interests of fighting the odious threat of terrorism. We then found that the same principle was injected into other legislation, most recently in relation to the so-called bikies legislation. Now we find that criminal intelligence is finding its way into decisions about who can and who cannot drink in a bar.

The question has to be asked: where will this trend stop? Is this the end of criminal intelligence being inserted into South Australian statutes, or does it have a way to go yet? The police powers on using criminal intelligence are quite extensive. Under proposed new section 125A the police can bar a person from entering or remaining on: specified licensed premises; or licensed premises of a specified class; or licensed premises of a specified class within a certain area; or all licensed premises within a specified area. Taken to its logical extreme, it could include all licensed premises in South Australia, so it is an extensive power.

The power will be backed up by criminal intelligence. By its nature, criminal intelligence is information that is kept secret. In particular, it is kept secret from the person to whom it relates. The standard of criminal justice that we have come to expect in this state (before the introduction of the notion of criminal intelligence) was that everyone had a right to know of the case against them, particularly in relation to criminal matters. Now, however, we are talking about the case against them in relation to whether or not they should be barred from licensed premises. That is the first principle.

The second principle is that everyone should have a right to be able to test the evidence against them. That means being able to test its veracity and to ask questions of those giving evidence in support of whatever the sanction might be—in this case, the need to bar someone. Both those rights have been regarded as fairly fundamental in this state when someone's rights are about to be infringed, such as their right to liberty in terms of criminal matters—in this case, a lesser right, but still important: the right to attend licensed public premises. We can get to the situation with criminal intelligence where it seems that everyone knows what is going on in the system except the person who is most concerned, and that is most alarming.

The philosophical basis behind the use of criminal intelligence for barring orders is probably no different to what it was in the so-called anti-bikies legislation but it does have some quite sinister downsides in this place. One downside is that these barring orders could be used as a form of punishment or harassment against individuals without there being any real rigour attached to whether or not the barring order was appropriate. In a nutshell, the use of criminal intelligence in any regime, whether it is in relation to licensing law or criminal law, makes the system less accountable.

Whilst the Greens are happy to support the sensible measures in this bill in relation to involving the police in removing disruptive and abusive people from licensed premises, we do not support the open cheque that is given to the police in relation to barring people on the basis of criminal intelligence, so we do not support those parts of the bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:48): Family First will be supporting this bill. However, I did want to go on the public record about a couple of fundamental points. In the past I have spoken quite a bit on the public record, as well as in my capacity as a former police minister, about trying to improve law and policing situations to combat outlaw motorcycle gangs. First, we must remember that these gangs want to work outside of the law. They work outside of the law for two main reasons: one involves getting huge amounts of cash as quickly as they can through undertaking, most of the time, illegal enterprises—if I can put it that way; and the other involves having far too much input into drug production and trafficking, which damages a lot of young people. This is done for the gangs' own gain but at a cost to our young generation who need to be protected and kept safe in public environments.

The government cites the history of the Tonic nightclub and the Gouger Street shootings as part of the impetus for this bill. While it is a reactive measure, I am happy to support the government in its endeavours to give the police more powers. The general public, in my opinion, need never feel afraid of tighter laws that are targeted towards outlaw motorcycle gangs. The police are very professional in the way they go about their work. If you are an average Jill or John out on the street enjoying yourself, you will not have to fear inappropriate policing activities as a result of this bill.

Since the bill was introduced, we have seen more recent shooting incidents, which have raised public concern. Whilst giving the police additional powers is one thing (and, as I have said, I support that initiative), I would like to see the police provided with more resources. I am concerned about the number of illegal firearms that are getting into the wrong hands in South Australia, which is something that seems to have accelerated quite a lot. I know that the firearms section has in recent years been very restricted when it comes to resourcing, and the government should be looking to provide further funding and support in that line of the budget within SAPOL's overall budget.

We saw a June shooting at the Buddha Bar and, on Sunday 5 October, a shooting at Gaucho's Argentinian Restaurant, which was described in The Advertiser the following day as 'the shooting in the early hours of Sunday morning was the second to occur outside the popular Gaucho's Argentinian Restaurant, next door to Escobar'.

Police can rely upon their criminal intelligence to bar someone without an offence or threat having to occur. I note that a promotion for Today Tonight's program tonight claims that all the bikie gangs are forming a coalition to fight the government on its anti-bikie legislation, and I expect that this will be another bill that they will also contest.

My concern about this bill is whether there will be enough police to do the job. The Rann government made a commitment on police numbers, many of which we are yet to see delivered. I must ask whether, when that was agreed to, the anti-bikie regime and the massive expansion of Operation Avatar taskforce was foreseen. I would not expect a local traffic police officer or a general duties officer to be at the forefront of policing this legislation and implementing the power to bar.

Operation Avatar will require specialist police. I am concerned that Operation Avatar is undermanned, and I ask the minister to give due consideration to this issue. It is one thing to pass laws, but it is another to back it up with the right resourcing to ensure that, in practice, the laws work. I am concerned that Operation Avatar does not have the necessary number of police officers to be able to do this additional work for which they will no doubt be primarily responsible.

I also place on the public record my appreciation of all the good work done by SAPOL, particularly Operation Avatar, which is a very difficult area of policing. I commend those officers who are part of Operation Avatar.

We ask that the government report on the use and effectiveness of these provisions. I noted the comments made by my colleague in his speech preceding mine. Whilst we are happy to give these increased powers to police, I believe that, for transparency, the government must ensure that reports are put to the parliament that look at the use and effectiveness of these additional powers. These are increased powers for police and, in those circumstances, I think it is always worthwhile for parliament to receive a report from time to time on how its laws are working. After all, these are not the government's bills; they belong to the parliament, and the parliament is not only responsible but accountable for its bills. I think it is only fair that we are advised of progress once this legislation has been passed.

This afternoon, we received correspondence from the minister's office indicating that there will be new amendments to include barring powers for the casino. With respect, I say to the minister that, when we receive these notifications, it would be good if we were given a slight amount of time to do our homework before we have to come into this place to give our support, or otherwise, to these bills. A lot of legislation passes through this chamber, and it would be appreciated if the government would give honourable members a little more time on occasions so that we can be properly briefed.

With those comments, I indicate that I have pleasure in supporting this bill. I trust that the bill will help to address safety issues in relation to nightclubs and licensed premises in South Australia.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley.