LIQUOR LICENSING

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:40): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Consumer Affairs a question about liquor licensing laws.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Today's Advertiser reported the government's proposal to restrict hotel trading hours in the CBD by forcing the closure of pubs and clubs between 4am and 7am. However, it was also reported that eight of the Adelaide Casino bars would be allowed to remain open during the curfew, giving it a virtual monopoly over early morning alcohol supply in the CBD. The government appears to be diverting patrons from Adelaide clubs and pubs to the government's largest poker machine venue in the state. My questions are:

1. Why is the minister forcing patrons in the CBD to go to South Australia's biggest gambling venue if they want to stay out between 4am and 7am?

2. How much additional revenue does the government expect to generate by making the largest poker machine venue a monopoly licensed venue in the CBD during these hours?

3. Did the minister or any member of her office or her department discuss the proposal with the Adelaide Casino before it was announced?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises) (14:41): I thank the honourable member for his most important questions and, indeed, value the opportunity to talk further about these very valuable reform measures that the government is contemplating. Indeed, they are quite radical reforms, and that is because we have a significant problem to do with alcohol-related harm on our streets, and we have drawn a line in the sand.

We are a government of courage and conviction, and our priority is keeping our streets safe. We do not apologise for taking this tough stance. We do not apologise for that. This is not a popularity contest. This is about doing the right thing and making our streets safer and, as I said, I do not apologise for that. In relation to the Casino, the honourable member is correct. He is not often correct but, in some elements of his explanation today, he was in fact correct, in that the proposal at this point in time is looking at granting an exemption to the Casino.

It is proposed that the bill lay on the table for six weeks to enable further extensive consultation, so there will be ample opportunity for everyone to have their say and for everyone to meet with me or whomever else they might want to meet with to discuss the details of these matters. In relation to the Casino, I think the North Terrace restaurant has not been included in the exemption. Honourable members might know the restaurant/cafe part of the Casino that comes out onto the railway terrace. That will be captured by the mandatory closure period, so that will not be included.

It was considered that the Casino provides a relatively unique entertainment experience and that it operates in a national, international and local marketplace. All other casinos in all our other capital cities operate roughly 24 hours a day—there are provisions around gambling operations, but it is roughly a 24-hour period—so to reduce hours here in South Australia would significantly disadvantage Adelaide. There have been 61 submissions to our discussion paper, and very few of them opposed the Casino operating at that time. There were more issues around, 'If the Casino can have an exemption, why can't we?' and a number of submissions argued that point.

Even the AHA's position (which I will have to double-check, and I will stand corrected if it is not right) is more in line with saying, 'If the Casino has an exemption, why shouldn't there be provision for exemptions for other venues?' rather than opposing the Casino having an exemption. As I said, we have six weeks to go, but at this point in time there does not appear to be overwhelming public support for not extending the exemption to the Casino, but time will tell and we will certainly monitor that.

In terms of discussions with the Casino and, for that matter, any other stakeholder associated with the proposals, we have been meeting with most relevant stakeholders for some time to discuss the proposals to be considered in the discussion paper before it went out. After the discussion paper went out, not only did submissions and correspondence come in but many stakeholders—individuals and organisations—requested delegations and meetings with me.

Wherever possible I met with people who requested a meeting with me. If I was not able to meet with them, I tried to ensure that at least the commissioner or someone else from the agency could meet with them. So, we did attempt to engage with them and be involved in dialogue and discussion all the way through. All parties were treated in pretty much the same way and, as I said, where stakeholders requested to meet with me—some more than once—I tried to meet their requests wherever possible. It was a very open process and one that involved extensive consultation, dialogue and exchange.

The PRESIDENT: Well, that's cleared up where staff can get a drink after they knock off!