Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 18 May 2017.) The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:58): The Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill is here being debated today as a result of a review that the government requested be conducted by former Supreme Court justice, the Hon. Timothy Anderson QC. The focus of his review was examining the existing liquor licensing regime under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, and recommending ways to improve the regime, to reduce red tape, foster and promote safer drinking practices, and provide efficiency and flexibility to business models within the industry. As the last comprehensive review of the licensing framework occurred in 1996, the Australian Conservatives do believe that it was necessary and welcome. The bill removes restrictions on the sale of liquor on Sundays, Christmas Day, Good Friday, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. It is questionable whether this will promote responsible drinking, as people do have a right to stockpile prior to these events and do not have to frequent liquor stores on Christmas Day. It creates an automatic extension for trading on New Year's Eve until 2am on New Year's Day, and it removes requirements for meals to be served in some new classes of licence. It aims to increase efficiency during the application process, such as reducing the class of licences, using a submissions-based process to lodge objections for licence applications. We certainly welcome removing the requirement for crowd controllers who are licensed under the Security and Investigation Industry Act to then again be approved under this act. It creates a community interest test to replace the needs test. The new community interest test will consider harm that might be caused due to the excessive or inappropriate consumption of liquor and the cultural, recreational, employment and tourism impacts, and the social impact in and the impact on the amenity of the locality of the premises, existing or proposed, and any other prescribed matter. I understand the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement supports the inclusion of this test, and I suggest this is reflective of what the community would expect when determining an application. The reforms that are aimed at promoting a safe drinking culture include: mandating a three-hour liquor break in trade between the hours of 3am and 8am; putting details of licensees who are convicted of an offence against the act on a non-compliance register; introducing further provisions to reverse the onus for offences relating to the sale or supply of liquor to minors and intoxicated persons; and tightening the laws regarding the supply of liquor to minors. This is something we are particularly concerned about and we would support any initiatives that would make it harder for minors to access liquor. To give the minister notice, I want to flag that at clause 1 I will be asking the government a question about the suggested regulation which will ensure that people holding alcohol for minors at warehouse parties will fall within the ambit of this change. If I am satisfied with the government's answer, then the Australian Conservatives will sit with that; however, we do advise the chamber that if we are not satisfied with the minister's answer at that point I reserve the right to immediately introduce an amendment to address the issue of warehouse parties in the legislation, which would have been our preference in any case. The reforms also include: strengthening the fit and proper person assessment; restricting the hours of sale of packaged liquor; providing the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner with wider powers to deal with breaches of the act or serious offences; and attempting to combat so-called 'grog running', where large amounts of alcohol are lawfully purchased and driven to a remote community and illegally sold. That is something we really have to work hard to stamp out. I notice that in the other house the member for Davenport, Mr Sam Duluk, indicated his belief that the government is not providing reform that will boost industry or protect the community. He questioned the effectiveness of new licence categories and whether they were workable, and he saw the model recommended by Mr Anderson as having outrageous licence fees. Personally, I do not have any examples but Mr Duluk, in his speech, gave examples of fees going from $771 at Belair Fine Wines to $4,000 a year and of other hotels going up with those higher licence fees. I notice that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition accepted the bill but presented three amendments: one to remove the provisions for a three-hour no-trading period, the second relating to the proposal that we have a register of licensees who have in some way been disciplined or suspended or the like, and thirdly, that licence fees are unconscionable. In the Law Society's submission they supported the prevention of grog running, which I am pleased to see. I did meet with both the AHA and the South Australian wine industry, and I must say that initially both the AHA and the South Australian wine industry had quite a lot of concerns regarding the proposed amendments. My understanding is that the minister with the carriage of the bill in the other place has now negotiated or modified it and come to a situation where those industry sectors are prepared to see the bill pass. I will be checking that before we get to the committee stage but, based on that and based on what I have flagged about the warehouses, which is a particular problem for schools when they have formals and the like—the schools do the right things, but these warehouse parties then breach all licensing conditions to entice young people there and supply them with alcohol; that must stop, and we will do everything we can to ensure that occurs—we support the general intent of the bill, subject to the final sign off with industry sectors and, as I said, an explanation from the government on warehouse parties. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.W. Ridgway.