Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Liquor Licensing (Prohibition of Certain Liquor) Amendment Bill Liquor Licensing (Prohibition of Certain Liquor) Amendment Bill Liquor Licensing (Prohibition of Certain Liquor) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 15 October 2015.) The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:18): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to support the second reading of the Liquor Licensing (Prohibition of Certain Liquor) Amendment Bill. The government has advised that there is no explicit power under the Liquor Licensing Act for the minister to prohibit the manufacture, sale or supply of what are deemed to be undesirable liquor products on general public interest or community welfare grounds. This bill seeks to correct that by amending section 131AA of the act to provide a clear ability to exercise this power. This bill has been drafted, we are told, largely in response to concerns about the introduction of powdered alcohol (Palcohol) into Australia. Palcohol is approved for sale in the United States of America, and the manufacturer is now seeking to distribute the product in Australia. We are advised that Palcohol has already been banned in Victoria and New South Wales. The AMA has warned that the product is dangerous and open to abuse. For example, swallowing the product without dissolving it in liquid or inhaling the powder, similar to illicit drugs like cocaine and heroin, increases the rate at which a person can become intoxicated. The government is also concerned the product will appeal to minors or will be confused with confectionary or non-alcoholic beverages and is easy to get into venues, being carried around in backpacks, or being brought into schools and so on. As one would imagine, the manufacturers and distributors have rejected those concerns of the government and other organisations and have criticised what they have deemed are 'kneejerk reactions' to banning it. Under the proposed legislation, before the minister can exercise this power, they must give the manufacturers, importers and distributors of the liquor product at least seven days to comment on the proposed prohibition. A temporary notice of 42 days of prohibition can be issued through the Government Gazette. Following this, the government would issue a regulation for a permanent ban, which would obviously be disallowable by either house of parliament. The Liberal Party sees that final provision as an important safety net for this. That is, if the government sought to use this new power in an unreasonable fashion, there would at least be time for those interested—the manufacturers, importers, distributors and supporters of a particular product—to lobby members of parliament. There would be this temporary ban which the government could institute in the interim, but then there is a requirement for the government to introduce a regulation, which is potentially disallowable. We are advised that the government cannot permanently issue temporary notices and bypass the parliamentary process. It is on that basis that the Liberal Party indicates its willingness to support the second reading of the bill. The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:21): I rise to support the second reading of the Liquor Licensing (Prohibition of Certain Liquor) Amendment Bill. Palcohol, as it is called, or powdered alcohol, was designed for the easy carriage and storage of alcohol originally. The inventor famously said it was a very convenient way to carry whilst hiking, as it was light and could easily fit into a backpack. Whilst this is no doubt true, Family First is concerned that for this very reason (that is, its transportability) it could pose significant unintended consequences for our youth in particular and for those who are able to sneak alcohol into locations where it is not meant to be. I am told that approximately three-quarters of a cup of water added to a sachet of Palcohol yields one standard alcoholic drink. Whilst there may be a market for the responsible use of Palcohol, there are certainly several significant areas of concern where this product could also be abused. Some of those concerns that we have with Palcohol are that, first of all, it might encourage children to drink alcohol because of the novelty factor. Children in particular could easily take Palcohol to school, for example. It would be easier to sneak Palcohol sachets into both licensed and unlicensed venues. The rate of intoxication could be greatly increased by consuming the product 'neat' (that is, alone or without any additives). It does encourage the snorting of the powder itself. It may be easier to spike drinks using Palcohol. Regulating the amount of alcohol in the powder would be difficult, and regulating the use of Palcohol especially at parties or other gatherings would be next to impossible. After a series of setbacks, Palcohol was given approval to be produced in the United States of America last year. Despite not having been released on the market yet, Palcohol has been banned outright in several US states, which is important to note, with several other states currently considering banning the product apparently. Prohibition has also occurred in Australia, with both Victoria and New South Wales declaring a ban on the sale, manufacture and distribution of Palcohol. This prohibition has been supported by notable organisations in both the United States and in Australia. The Victorian president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Tony Bartone, in March this year publicly supported moves to ban the powder. He raised concerns that labels or warnings on the product would easily be ignored and would not stop people abusing the product. He supports control measures that ensure people have a predictable amount of alcohol in each item they purchase. Jim Mosher from the John Hopkins School of Public Health weighed in on the discussion, saying that there was currently no research on the effects of Palcohol, but that it posed the potential for serious brain damage or death in some instances. This is, of course, something that we actively want to avoid here in South Australia, or no doubt anywhere else for that matter. Geoff Munro from the Australian Drug Foundation holds grave concerns about the product. He told news.com.au that: Youth drinking is slowly declining and parents are helping children avoid drinking. A product like powdered alcohol is an anti-social product, it would be easier to disguise and use unsupervised and we know that young people are attracted to the novelty of new things. Whilst the manufacturer of Palcohol has attempted to play down the potential dangers of this product, Family First believes that it is potentially dangerous and, therefore, something that needs to be viewed with some scepticism. We believe that the sale of Palcohol could lend itself to the possibility of abuse, which contradicts the message of alcohol moderation that society in general has worked so hard to convey over the last few decades in particular. We support the move in South Australia to place a ban on this product as they have done in Victoria and New South Wales. This bill represents a straightforward and what we would consider a clever approach to the current issue that has been raised regarding Palcohol and has highlighted the potential for such a potentially dangerous substance to pass through a loophole in our current legislation, should this product make its way into South Australia. This is not something that Family First wants to see. The bill provides the minister with the power to prohibit the manufacture, sale or supply of liquor on public interest or community welfare grounds, the same as has occurred in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. The current procedures under the act in relation to prohibition remain—that is, the minister can impose a 42-day prohibition or make a regulation prohibiting a product. Where a regulation is made, the minister must give the manufacturers, importers and/or distributors at least seven days to comment on the proposal. The regulations would also be subject to disallowance, obviously, should either house of parliament disagree with what the minister is trying to achieve and that, as I think the Hon. Mr Lucas pointed out, provides a safety net and it provides us with some comfort. Given the seriousness of introducing products such as Palcohol into South Australia, Family First is supportive of the second reading of this bill and looks forward to its passage through the chamber. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.