Bills

Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 October 2017.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (15:27): I wish to thank all those honourable members who have contributed to the debate on this bill. I provide the following information in relation to a number of questions raised. I will refer to questions raised in the other place that still need answering. I think they will be helpful in making sure that we have a reasonably speedy committee stage.

The member for Bragg in the other place sought information about how much per year in the forward estimates has been taken into account as revenue from the increase in annual fees. I am advised that only the current annual fees, as detailed in the Liquor Licensing (General) Regulations 2012, have been included in the forward estimates, indexed by CPI.

The member for Bragg in the other place also sought information about how much has been allocated for transitional costs. I am advised that funding allocated for transitional costs was approximately $5,000 for project implementation expenditure in 2016-17, and the actual spend for 2016-17 was around that amount.

The member for Schubert in the other place asked whether the minister could confirm that the licences as they currently exist on the CBS website were actually up to date and whether the current conditions for licences were up to date on the website. I am advised that that is generally the case. The licences appearing on the CBS website will include all current conditions.

However, I am advised that in some instances this may not be the case because the website does not capture point in time data but relies on information being updated manually. As you might expect, there is a lag between the time decisions are made by the commissioner, a delegate of the commissioner or the licensing court on a scheduled hearing date, and the licence being updated and published on the CBS website.

Our systems ensure that an alert is triggered if a licence is not updated within six days of the hearing date, I am informed. Of course, as with all manual systems, there is the potential for error, and it may be the case that there are examples of licences on the website that do not contain all the current conditions. There may also be licences with interim conditions that have expired, and it is expected that these will be updated as all licences are reviewed when we transition to the new licensing class under the new legislation.

The legislation which commenced in December 2015 regarding entertainment unlicensed premises has the effect of deeming some conditions of no effect. Conditions on licences that have not been updated since that time have to be read subject to that change.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire in this place had a question regarding minors and warehouse parties. The government will be moving an amendment to proposed section 1(10)(a)(vi) in relation to the definition of a prescribed place for the purposes of the secondary supply laws. The amendment refines the definition of a prescribed place with respect to public places, due to the concern that warehouse-type parties attended by minors might be held in public places.

The Hon. Tammy Franks spoke about the new section 77 proposed in the bill, and the removal of the ability of councils to make submissions with respect to applications. I am informed that Mr Anderson, in his review of the state's liquor licensing laws, was of the view that applicants before the licensing authority are often required to revisit the same issues that were considered at the planning level due to the ability of councils, presently, to intervene or object. This often delays determination of the application, duplicates the planning process and may result in planning-type conditions on liquor licences.

The government seeks to address this duplication by limiting the grounds on which councils may make submissions and removing the ability for councils to intervene. The current requirement that applicants must satisfy the licensing authority that relevant planning and other council approvals or consents have been obtained will remain.

Under new section 78 the commissioner will also have a discretion, in accordance with the rules of natural justice, to invite submissions from particular bodies in relation to an application. Therefore, if, for example, development approval is not required for an application, the commissioner will have the ability to invite the local council to provide a submission on any ground.

Furthermore, for new licence applications the licensing authority must be satisfied that the operation of the licence would unlikely result in undue offence, annoyance, disturbance or inconvenience to people who reside, work or worship in the vicinity of the premises, noting that certain entertainment is to be disregarded.

In relation to comments made about extending the small venue licence statewide, it is the government's view that more time is required to assess this relatively new initiative and to determine the viability of that licence in other areas of the state. In any event, the bill allows for extension of that licence class to different areas declared in the regulations following the consultation process.

In this place the Hon. Rob Lucas made comments about the transition of existing licences to the new classes of licence, and in particular to the conditions attached to the existing licences. The general principle regarding conditions on existing licences is contained within schedule 2, clause 5. The intention is that existing conditions will be preserved. However, the commissioner will have the power, by providing notice in writing to the licensee, to add, substitute, vary or revoke a condition of the licence under particular circumstances. The main aim of this power is to restructure licences to be less complex, easier to read and to remove any outdated, irrelevant or unnecessary conditions.

Mr Anderson's review recommended such a power to enable liquor licences to be in a form that is simple to read, and that the conditions placed on the licence are relevant to the sale, supply and consumption of liquor. There are review rights associated with notice given by the commissioner, which are also contained in schedule 2.

The Hon. Rob Lucas spoke about the proposed section 135A, which allows the commissioner to publish prescribed details of licensees who have committed offences against the Liquor Licensing Act 1997. The publication of these details is at the discretion of the commissioner. As stated by the minister in another place, if a person seeks to remove their details from the register, it will be up to them to contact the commissioner, and the commissioner will then determine if there is a reasonable case for removal.

Comments have been made about the changes to the annual fee structure arising from Mr Anderson's recommendations in his review of the liquor licensing laws. I reiterate the government's intention to consult with the industry before any change is made to the annual fee structure. As indicated by the minister in another place, Mr Anderson's recommendation is a starting point for the conversation with industry. Annual fees are set out in the Liquor Licensing (General) Regulations 2012. Therefore, any changes to fees would occur through those regulations.

This bill has been developed through an extensive consultative process, beginning with a discussion paper and independent review. There was also extensive public consultation on the draft bill, including with industry. As a result, the government believes that this bill will reform South Australia's liquor licensing laws so that the laws reflect community standards and facilitate a vibrant hospitality industry, while ensuring adequate regulation to maintain a safe drinking culture. I commend the bill to this chamber.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister, in his reply to the second reading, answered a number of questions. Some of the responses were to questions I think raised by the member for Bragg in another place, and the minister in another place had undertaken to bring back replies. Can I firstly just clarify: did the minister say the cost of implementation of this new scheme was $5,000 in 2016-17?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will just repeat that one sentence for the sake of clarity. I am advised that the funding allocated for transition costs was approximately $500,000 for project implementation expenditure in 2016-17. The actual spend for that year was around the same amount.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I either misheard that or the minister misstated it. I thought he said $5,000, which I thought was an extraordinarily cheap transition process. That was for 2016-17. I think the member for Bragg raised a series of questions about the implementation costs of the new system. Clearly, those costs, I would assume, did not conclude in 2016-17; that is, in 2017-18 at the very least, and maybe in future years, there will be implementation costs for the new system. So, what are the budgeted implementation costs for 2017-18, and is it expected that there will be additional implementation costs in 2018-19 and 2019-20?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The policy adviser I have for this bill does not have the financial information in relation to that. I am happy to undertake to bring that back, and I will make sure, as people listen to that, they write it down.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy, and I do not intend to delay the proceedings of the committee. If the minister is prepared to undertake to correspond with interested members, including myself, as to what the budget implementation costs are for this year and for any of the forward estimate years, we would appreciate it. Can I also clarify the answer the minister gave in relation to the fees that are to be collected? As I understand it, they are to be outlined in a regulation at some stage.

In the debate in the House of Assembly, the member for Bragg highlighted correspondence she had received from minister Malinauskas dated 22 April this year, which indicated that at present the revenue per year from liquor licensing annual fees is $2.65 million. He went on to say that if table 10 in Mr Anderson's report was implemented, the revenue would be approximately $7.21 million per year. The government has left open the option of not implementing fees at that particular level. It could be anywhere between $2.65 million and $7.21 million per year.

My understanding is the minister in his reply said that the forward estimates actually include the existing $2.65 million but are budgeted to increase by CPI through the forward estimate years. The minister is indicating by nodding his head that, yes, that is exactly what he said. My understanding is the government is, in the new regulations, going to settle on some more significant fee increase than just the status quo and increase by CPI, but they have not yet said whether it will be the $7.21 million a year that Mr Anderson has indicated or some number in between.

Can the minister indicate whether that is in fact correct; that is, it is highly likely that the government, in terms of implementing the new system, is going to settle on a number more significant than just a CPI increase on $2.65 million? If the minister can confirm that is the case. Can he also indicate his latest estimate as to when those particular regulations, with the particular fee implications in the regulations, are likely to be publicly available?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, as I said towards the end of the second reading contribution, that it is the government's intention to consult with the industry before any change is made to that annual fee structure. My advice is that the starting point for that conversation with the industry will be the recommendations from the Anderson review. My advice also is that we do not expect this to be done very quickly. It will take some time to do that consultation with the industry. I do not have a particular month that it will be completed by, but this will not be a super quick process. It will take some time to consult with industry. For those reasons, I do not have advice on a figure for future years, except to say that this will occur with industry consultation.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 21 passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have questions at clause 22 and then I will move to my amendment. In his response in his second reading summation, the minister indicated that the government was not supportive of extending the small venues licence beyond the city limits because that had yet to be appropriately reviewed and, indeed, the implications not known. Can the minister outline what date the small venues licence came into operation, what date it was reviewed and who was consulted in that review that was required by the original enabling legislation a year after the implementation of the small venues licence back in 2014?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have some information but not all the information you seek. My advice is that the small venue licence began operation on 26 April 2013. I do not have information on results of any reviews, but I am happy to take that on notice and bring it back. I just do not have the information at hand during the course of this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: For the information of the minister, when we enabled the small venues licence in the CBD, which was then indeed not North Adelaide but has now been adventurously extended to North Adelaide, it was promised to be extended across the entirety of the state when that government legislation was debated back, as you have said, in 2013. A year on, it was reviewed in 2014, so there is a review that the government has done.

Does that review say that it should not extend beyond the city limits? Has any other review been done by the government in the intervening years to leave them in this position where they feel that they still do not have enough information to extend a small venues licence beyond the city limits of the City of Adelaide to the state of South Australia so that the people of Strathalbyn might be able to sit in a small bar?

The Hon. S.G. Wade: And Macclesfield, the Three Brothers Arms.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: A mojito in Macclesfield could be on the cards.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that further consideration was taken as part of the Anderson review which we have talked about extensively as part of this bill. The Anderson review's recommendations were to have that extension to North Adelaide but no further extension from North Adelaide. That is something the government will obviously consider as we see the successes within the Adelaide area and as recommended by the review of the North Adelaide area. That was a recommendation of the Anderson review that the government is considering but has not taken up, the extension to North Adelaide.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: With respect, the minister is conflating two reviews. Yes, the Anderson review looked at that adventurous step to North Adelaide. I was talking about the original legislation, the debate which promised the member for Schubert, for example, a small venue licence to be available in the Barossa. It promised the member for Morphett, for example, a small venue licence to be able to be enjoyed in Glenelg, back when the original enabling legislation was determined.

In fact, the Attorney has had the power since 2014 to extend these small venue licences, should he have so chosen, but the Attorney-General seems to have erected a hipster-proof fence around the city. The Greens have previously moved a private members' bill on this matter. It would be no surprise to the government that this amendment that I am now leading up to moving reflects that private members' bill, the Liquor Licensing (Small Venue Licence) Amendment Bill 2016. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 20, lines 1 to 3 [clause 22, inserted section 37(2)]—Delete subsection (2)

This is the first of a series of amendments designed to enable the small venues licence to be enjoyed beyond the city limits. It reflects the Greens' legislation previously brought before this place to enact that in 2016.

At that time, I certainly consulted, and one of the pieces of correspondence that I draw to the council's attention in support of the extension of the small venues licence beyond the Adelaide city limits is from the Local Government Association, which has consulted widely on this particular matter. I note in correspondence from Andrea Malone of the LGA, dated between 11 August 2016 and 30 September 2016 when they did their due diligence and responded on this, that:

The LGA supports this move and issued a media statement in July [2016] supporting the extension of the licensing regime to council areas outside the CBD, where councils supported the move.

Indeed, they supported the extension of that licence. That call by the LGA, indeed a motion was moved at their annual meeting, has so far been ignored by government and that is why the Greens move this amendment yet again, in an amended form, to a government bill today that we have previously put before this place in a private members' bill.

We think it is ludicrous that the government promised that this small venue licence would be available to those across the state to secure the votes of people like the member for Morphett and the member for Schubert and so many others, indeed many of the government benches in the other place were promised that there would potentially be small venues in their electorates, yet we have seen a glacial pace of progress from the Attorney on this. I am hoping that the council today will see fit to support a Greens amendment to take down the hipster-proof fence that has been erected around our city.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have some questions on the clause. Is the minister able, and I am happy for him to take it on notice because I do not expect he will have the answer with him, to provide on notice a list of all the current small venue licences that are operating? I notice in some media reports a number of sites refer to small venue licences, but those who know more than I do about these things have indicated that a number of them do not actually have small venue licences. They have had the advantage of other forms of licence, albeit they continue to be referred to as small bars or small venue licence outlets or sites. So, if the minister is prepared to do that. My other question pertains to subclause 37(1) of the bill before us, which provides:

Subject to this Act and the conditions of the licence, a small venue licence authorises the licensee to sell liquor on the licensed premises for consumption on the licensed premises between 8am on 1 day and 2am the following day.

Can the minister indicate if there are currently small venue licences that have been given special conditions that are different to the 8am to 2am trading arrangement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his two questions. He is right, I do not have the answers immediately. I will take those on notice and bring back a reply for both those questions. Certainly, in my younger days I might have had a better idea of how many bars (and their names) that might be around Adelaide, but, sadly, these days I am not so familiar with drinking establishments around the city.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The minister should have a discussion with the Attorney-General. I think he is a bit older than the minister in this chamber. In relation to the amendment that has been moved, as the member for Bragg has indicated publicly, the position of the Liberal Party is that we will not be supporting the amendment for similar reasons to the ones given by the minister in his reply to the second reading.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Employment–1]—

Page 26, line 8 [clause 22, inserted section 40(8)(e)]—Delete '3 years' and substitute '5 years'

This amendment changes the maximum term for a short-term licence from three to five years. The Adelaide city council has recently approved multi-year event licences. For events using the Adelaide Parklands it is understood that multi-year event licences may be granted for up to five years. Extending the maximum of a short-term licence will make this consistent with the Adelaide city council multi-year event licences and allow for more certainty for event organisers.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In the consultation the government conducted on this, were there any stakeholders who indicated opposition to the proposed amendment from the government?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that we are not aware of any, but we will go back and check and if we can find any we will be happy to bring that answer back to interested honourable members, particularly the Hon. Robert Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The member for Bragg has advised that the Liberal Party will support the amendment being moved by the government.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 23 to 25 passed.

Clause 26.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Franks–1]—

Page 27, lines 33 to 35 [clause 26, inserted section 44(2)]—Delete subsection (2) and substitute:

(2) This section applies in relation to the licence (under this Act) held by the holder of the casino licence in respect of the casino premises (both within the meaning of the Casino Act 1997) despite any provision to the contrary in that Act, the conditions of the casino licence or the approved licensing agreement under the Casino Act 1997.

This is to clause 26, page 27, lines 33 to 35. It deletes subsection (2) and substitutes (2). This section applies in relation to the licence under this act held by the holder of the Casino licence in respect of the Casino premises (both within the meaning of the Casino Act 1997), despite any provision to the contrary in that act, the conditions of the Casino licence or the approved licensing under the Casino Act 1997. I move this, as the Greens have done to liquor licensing bills before, because the Casino, of course, gets special treatment. This removes that special treatment from the Casino. Simply put: if a law should apply to one, it should apply to all, and it should apply to the Casino. This is, of course, with regard to the mandatory closing provisions.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I indicate that the government will oppose this amendment. It is the government's position that the Casino is a unique tourist destination compared to other licensed premises, attracting tourists from interstate and overseas. Enforcing a three-hour break in trade would place South Australia at a disadvantage in comparison with similar operations in other states, which have casinos that operate 24 hours a day.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Before I move my amendment I would like to speak to this particular amendment. The Liberal Party holds a similar view to the government on this issue, and we will not be supporting the amendment.

For some time the Liberal Party's position has been that the Casino is a special beast. There is a whole range of site-specific restrictions, regulations and laws that apply to the Casino and, as the minister has highlighted, casinos in most other jurisdictions are similarly treated differently in terms of restrictions on liquor licensing and gambling licensing and a range of other issues as well. The Liberal Party believes there is a sensible argument to be made to continue to treat the Casino separately in relation to these issues. For those reasons, we will not support the amendment.

Whilst I am on my feet I will move the amendment standing in my name. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lucas–2]—

Page 27, lines 25 to 35—Delete the clause

As the member for Bragg outlined in her contribution in the House of Assembly, and as I outlined earlier in my contribution to the second reading debate, this issue relates to freedom of choice for trading between 3am and 8am or 9am, depending on your particular perspective.

It is associated with a debate we have had before in this chamber, and I know there are strongly held differing views in this chamber in relation to the lockout provisions. We have lockout provisions in South Australia, and a number of other jurisdictions also have lockout provisions. My personal views on the issue have been well known in this chamber for many years, but the reality is that we do have lockout provisions in existence at the moment.

I will not delay the debate in the committee stage by going over some of the detail, but we did take some evidence on this in the Budget and Finance Committee. There are some strongly conflicting views on what the evidence has been in relation to the success or otherwise of the lockout laws. I think I mentioned, in my second reading contribution, that someone regarded as a security expert referred to the brawling in Hindley Street last weekend as being generated in part by the lockout laws. Certainly, some of the claimed benefit of the lockout laws that the government and the former minister for health have sometimes trotted out have been strongly contested by some academics who have made a living working in this particular area of liquor licensing regulations and lockout laws.

I do not stand before the chamber and say that there is a damningly overwhelming body of evidence one way or another that proves lockout laws have either worked or not worked, but I do argue that the jury is out in relation to the evidence. Those who might have a view that lockout laws are bad are certainly able to find evidence to justify that argument. As a strong supporter of lockout laws, the government clearly believes it has the evidence to justify its position.

In essence, what we are being asked to do here, over and above the lockout law that exists, is to add another form of restriction to the ability of people to trade, the ability of people to engage in entertainment at whatever hour of the day or night they choose. As I said in the second reading, my personal view on these issues is very strongly that if you have bad eggs then punish them and penalise them.

However, if the majority of people want to be entertained at the Casino in the early hours or want to be entertained at a late-night venue in the early hours, or if they finish their work at 4am in the morning, or whatever it might happen to be, and they want to go to an entertainment venue or if they have gone to a party and they want to kick on into the early hours of the morning of a Saturday or a Sunday morning, as long as they are behaving appropriately, why should we be preventing that sort of behaviour?

I think they are powerful arguments to support the amendment that the member for Bragg highlighted, which I am now moving on her and our behalf in this particular chamber. That is to say, the licensing regulations should crack down on those licensees and individuals who do not behave. We have a view that, in terms of policing in the precinct, in particular if we are talking about the entertainment precinct of Adelaide, more police on the beat at the peak periods, Fridays and Saturdays, not just during the summer months but throughout the year, more resources in the Adelaide precinct in relation to these issues is an important part of ensuring that appropriate law and order is established and maintained in the precinct so that those people who do want to enjoy the precinct in the early hours of the morning should be able to do so safely without fear of being assaulted, accosted or interfered with in any way by drunken hoons or louts at that particular hour of the morning.

There is an important policing role—we accept that—in relation to these issues. Just constantly restricting trading hours, in our judgement, is not the way to go in the entertainment precinct. Again, we accept the entertainment precinct of Adelaide is a special beast. There are special provisions and policing and all of those sorts of things which can and should apply in that particular area. Not just young people but young people in particular should be allowed to enjoy themselves into the early hours of the morning. Just because some of us perhaps no longer relate to marauding the streets of Adelaide in the earlier hours of the morning, between 3am and 9am, does not mean that there is something inherently wrong in young people choosing to entertain themselves and be entertained during those particular hours.

It seems to be a view that certainly some within the government have held—the former attorney-general was notorious in relation to these provisions, as was the former premier. There were senior people who were looking for lockout laws at a much earlier hour than 3am. There was discussion at various times of 2am and 1am. I think at one stage some sections of the police were even supporting lockout laws at midnight. As soon as you start restricting, this is the sort of thinking that becomes pervasive in terms of a government further restricting and further restricting.

The Liberal Party's position is to oppose the amendment that the Hon. Tammy Franks has moved, but I have moved the amendment standing in my name in relation to the further restriction. We are advised that the impact of ours, if passed, will be to return the situation to essentially the status quo. That is where we are at the moment. That is, there is still a lockout, but there is not this further restriction.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have already indicated the government's opposition to the Hon. Tammy Franks's amendment. I will not speak at any length whatsoever. I do not think it will be any surprise to indicate the government's opposition to the Hon. Rob Lucas's amendment. He is right; this issue has been agitated quite a lot in the public and particularly in this chamber.

I note that, in his report, Mr Anderson stated that closing times in South Australia, in comparison with other cities of Australia, are quite liberal and, indeed, that is the case around the world. The government agrees with Mr Anderson that the mandatory three-hour break in trade is consistent with harm minimisation principles.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise on behalf the Greens to thank the government and opposition for indicating their positions on subjecting the Casino to the same laws as all other licensed venues and then move to address the opposition's amendment, which is with regard to the 5am mandatory closing. In doing so, I thank Tim Swaine, who is the president of the Late Night Venue Association of South Australia Incorporated, for his correspondence of 4 April 2017, because while the government has just indicated that they believe this issue has been well agitated, the letter that I have received on 5am mandatory closing leads me to think otherwise. It reads:

The Late Night Venue Association of SA Incorporated (LNVASA) is the representative body for South Australian businesses operating licensed premises trading past midnight.

The State Government has proposed in the Liquor Licensing (Liquor Review) Amendment Bill 2017 that all licensed premises close for at least 3 hours each day between the hours of 3am and [5]am except the Skycity Adelaide Casino. If passed, this will mean, in practice, a 5am mandatory closing for all licensed premises in South Australia, except the Skycity Adelaide Casino.

The LNVASA is, quite frankly, astounded that such a draconian measure has been recommended as part of a review of liquor licensing laws and is currently being proposed without any consideration of its merits for the following reasons:

The proposed 3-hour break in trade was not mentioned in the Liquor Licensing Discussion Paper or the Terms of Reference for the Review of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 (SA)

The proposed 3-hour break in trade was not discussed with the LNVASA and Tim Anderson QC at a meeting held on 22 February 2016

The proposed 3-hour break in trade was not raised in the South Australian Police written submission to the Review of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 (SA)

In Tim Anderson QC's 330-page report on the Review of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 (SA), the proposed 3-hour break in trade was given half a page [of a 330 page report]

The proposed 3-hour break in trade will not reduce alcohol-related harm after 5am, given even the rubbery statistics in the 2015 Review Of The Codes Established under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 show there to be a substantial decrease in police incident reports and apprehensions by police between 5am and 7am (even without the proposed 3-hour break in trade)

The proposed 3-hour break in trade is not a genuine break in night trade, as argued by the State Government; it is a break in morning trade

The proposed 3-hour break in trade is a form of restricted trading hours and completely inconsistent with contemporary community expectations which, according to the State Government, new liquor licensing laws are meant to reflect

The proposed 3-hour break in trade is contrary to the State Government's stated desire to reduce red tape in liquor licensing

The proposed 3-hour break in trade will mean that large numbers of patrons will be ejected from late night venues onto the streets at 5am

The proposed 3-hour break in trade unfairly strengthens the Skycity Adelaide Casino's competitive advantage with respect to late night entertainment.

In the circumstances, the LNVASA strongly urges you to oppose the introduction of a 3-hour break in trade [and welcomes the opportunity to discuss it with you.]

Indeed, the Greens will not support funnelling people into the Casino at 5am and that is why we will support the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The Australian Conservatives will also support the amendments. We have had lengthy debate on this issue over the years and we believe that the status quo, certainly from the evidence that we are aware of, appears to be achieving the objectives for which it was originally supported, and we have seen little, if any, justification to change what is currently in place.

The Hon. T.A. Franks' amendment negatived; the Hon. R.I. Lucas' amendment carried; clause negatived.

Clauses 27 to 51 passed.

New clause 51A.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Lucas–2]—

Page 37, after line 4—Insert:

51A—Amendment of section 69—Extension of trading area

(1) Section 69(3)—delete 'An' and substitute 'Subject to subsection (4), an'

(2) Section 69—after subsection (3) insert:

(4) If the licensing authority considers that a council is unreasonably withholding its consent or approval for the purposes of subsection (3)(d) or (e) in relation to a prescribed application, the licensing authority may grant an authorisation under this section in respect of the prescribed application without the council's consent or approval (as the case requires).

(5) In this section—

Adelaide CBD means the area of the City of Adelaide bounded—

(a) on the north by the northern bank of the River Torrens; and

(b) on the south by the northern alignment of South Terrace; and

(c) on the east by the western alignment of East Terrace and its prolongation north to the northern bank of the River Torrens; and

(d) on the west by the eastern alignment of West Terrace and its prolongation north to the northern bank of the River Torrens,

but does not include an area in the City of Adelaide determined by the Commissioner, by notice in the Gazette, not to be part of the Adelaide CBD for the purposes of this section;

prescribed application means an application relating to a relevant place that is in a prescribed area;

prescribed area means—

(a) the Adelaide CBD; and

(b) any other area determined by the Commissioner, by notice in the Gazette, to be a prescribed area for the purposes of this section.

I referred briefly to this in the second reading. I think those of us who attend the AHA's annual Christmas lunch have been regaled on various occasions by the President of the AHA's concerns about various pieces of red tape as they relate to liquor licensing and other issues on occasions. On one such occasion, he raised the issue of the requirement under the Liquor Licensing Act for people to be seated when they are having a beer at a table. This was some years ago and, as has been explained, there is a complicated process where, evidently, venues can have that sort of restriction removed.

The argument from the AHA, and indeed drinkers, was that in many circumstances and arrangements there is no particular problem being created by people standing around a table and sharing a schooner each, or whatever it might happen to be, without being required by law to have to sit down around that table and have the same schooner. I am sure the minister will be able to outline what the explanation for this particular provision was. I am sure in some way it was directed to prevent unruly behaviour and that perhaps people who were standing were more unruly than people who were sitting. I am not sure. I guess there was some argument there originally for it.

The member for Bragg has advised in a discussion with parliamentary counsel that this was quite a complicated provision to try to draft by way of an amendment to the liquor licensing law. The explanation given to me—and I will read it—is that:

On consultation with the AHA, [parliamentary counsel and others] a further aspect of reducing red tape for licence holders has been raised, regarding hotel and small bar licences to allow standing outside their venues, without the requirement to be seated.

Currently, licence holders must apply to both the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services and also their relevant council, at a fee, to remove the restriction imposed on all licences that patrons must be seated when consuming a drink outside.

That is the process, evidently. If the minister has a different view, I would seek clarification, but the advice given to the member for Bragg is that licence holders have to apply both to the commissioner and their local council, pay a fee and get the appropriate approval to remove this particular restriction. Our position was: why do we not just get rid of this restriction completely? Evidently if you do that, there are other complications that the government and the licensing people see in relation to just a blanket removal of that particular provision.

The advice that has come back—and as I said, we were told that this is quite complicated—is that our amendment seeks to allow the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services to authorise the no standing restriction to be removed on a licence, on application, without the council's approval. In essence, we have already given the commissioner, who is the chief Pooh-Bah on a whole range of issues in relation to liquor licensing, those powers and we are giving him even more powers in relation to the legislation we have before us.

We would be giving the commissioner one additional power; that is, it will be the commissioner who will make the decision, not the local council, who may be subject to all sorts of arguments as to why we should not allow people to stand and drink at a table in a hotel or a small bar.

The advice the member for Bragg has given me is that, although an application and a fee to allow patrons to stand will still be a requirement, the burden of council approval will not exist. We think it is a common-sense amendment, but it has proved very difficult to actually achieve. What we set out to achieve was to have a blanket 'you don't have to worry about this particular provision'. There are evidently sensible reasons why we cannot and should not do that. This amendment therefore seeks to remove some of the red tape and regulation in relation to it and to make it easier for venue holders to get approval from the commissioner to allow people to stand and drink in certain circumstances.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate that we will support the ability of people to stand and drink alcohol and not be penalised, and for liquor licensed venues not to be penalised for that process. We think it is one of those quaint aspects of the South Australian liquor licensing regime that possibly had a history that made sense at one point, but certainly makes no sense to us here and now.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The Australian Conservatives also support the amendment. The particularly attractive part from our perspective is that having to gain the approval of two authorities to allow standing up and drinking is overkill. Perhaps this amendment strikes the right balance.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will not speak for a large amount of time. It is the government's view that this amendment is inconsistent with provisions of the Local Government Act and the role of councils in relation to council land that is under council control, but given the indications of where we are today, I will put on the record that we oppose it but we will have a vote on it.

New clause inserted.

Clauses 52 to 71 passed.

Clause 72.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Employment–1]—

Page 49, line 37 [clause 72, inserted section 110A(6), definition of prescribed place, (a)]—Delete 'public place; or' and substitute:

public place, other than—

(i) a public place of a kind referred to in paragraph (d) of the definition of regulated premises in section 4; or

(ii) any other public place, or kind of public place, declared by regulation not to be a prescribed place; or

This amendment relates to the new secondary supply laws in relation to minors under proposed section 110A. Under proposed section 110A, the supply of liquor to a minor, and the consumption or possession of liquor by a minor, will be an offence unless it is a gratuitous supply occurring in a prescribed place under certain conditions referred to as an exception. These conditions include that the liquor only be supplied by a responsible adult, for example, the parent, or with the consent of an authorised adult, and that it be properly supervised according to the responsible supervision requirements in the bill.

The prescribed place will include public places. This amendment refines the definition of a 'prescribed place' in respect of public places. It has the effect of excluding from the definition of a prescribed place a public place that is being used for the purpose of an organised event where admission to the event is gained on payment of money, presentation of a prepaid ticket or purchase of some item. This means that the exemption would not apply to those organised events. In taking a cautious approach, the amendment also provides a power to exclude other public places from the definition of prescribed place just in case other issues arise in the future.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The member for Bragg advises that the Liberal Party will support this amendment for similar reasons to those the minister has just outlined. The member for Bragg advises that, in a briefing she had with government representatives, she was advised that this particular amendment had come about as a result of a request from a number of non-government schools to try to curb the behaviour at afterparties.

I guess many of us have had children and friends go through the late secondary school years. To those who have not, good luck as your children go through those particular years, says he looking across the chamber. The behaviour at some afterparties perhaps does not bear closer inspection but certainly bears the need for greater regulation.

The reality with afterparties for schools, school formals and those sorts of things is that the law can only do so much. Ultimately, it is going to be the behaviour of young people and others that will dictate whether or not there will be safe passage of those young people through those afterparties and the aftermath of the afterparties as well.

The government has moved this particular amendment. We are advised it is designed to now include warehouses where afterparties are often held, which are classified as non-residential premises and were previously not caught by the legislation, so it is a further endeavour to tighten and provide some regulation and restriction. To that end, we are therefore happy to support the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 73 to 94 passed.

Clause 95.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Lucas–2]—

Page 62, line 36 to page 63, line 3 [clause 95, inserted section 135A]—Delete inserted section 135A

Anderson recommended to the government in recommendation 95 that the government 'legislate to require that offences relating to the sale of liquor to minors are strict liability offences with offending licensees recorded in a register and details published on the CBS website'. The government has accepted that recommendation and inserts section 135A into the bill to publish the names of licensees who have been convicted of an offence against this act on the CBS website. These details will be removed after five years from the date of conviction.

As I outlined in the second reading explanation, the AHA and some other stakeholders have strongly opposed what they have referred to as a blacklist. Their view, which is one the Liberal Party has been prepared to support, is that licensees have already been penalised, as they should. I go back to my position as I outlined in the second reading; that is, if licensees behave poorly, they should be penalised; if individuals behave poorly, they should be penalised and held responsible for their actions.

However, the AHA has made the argument that, for example, if an employee who they have employed at that particular hotel has been responsible for the breach and the conviction of the licensee for offences in this particular area, clearly, the licensee has to take responsibility because they have employed the particular person. That particular person is punished and so is the licensee.

But if the licensee has taken all actions that they thought were reasonable to ensure that these sorts of offences would not occur, and then take action to dismiss and remove the one employee who created the problem and that person is no longer employed by that particular licensee, the AHA is asking why the blacklist, as they portray it, should then continue to exist. Clearly, it would be something that would be perhaps potentially publicised and publicised widely, and may well lead to a loss of custom and support for the people trying to operate that particular licence.

Of course, it is also possible that a licence might change; that is, new management comes in, pledged with maybe a very good reputation in terms of managing a whole range of other sites over a long period of time, and very successfully, without any breaches. Maybe there was poor management at one particular hotel, they bought it out and new management comes in. It would seem unfair if the operation of this register would continue to portray this particular venue in an unfavourable light for a five-year period. For those reasons, the Liberal Party has decided that it does not support this new provision and, by way of this amendment, is urging members to oppose it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his contribution and I understand the intent of what he is moving. As I outlined in my second reading contribution, the government will oppose this amendment. I will add that it is our view that the register will also act as a deterrent for licensees and will encourage licensees to become more vigilant in complying with the law. Other states publish incidents of noncompliance with the liquor licensing law. For example, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation publishes summaries of the results of prosecutions each financial year on its website.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will be supporting the opposition amendment. It is pretty much a measure that uses a sledgehammer to crack a walnut; it is overkill. The reason I say that is that, as the Hon. Rob Lucas outlined, these people are already being punished for wrongdoing. There are circumstances where people who were not actually responsible for the wrongdoing will be punished, and continue to be punished, which seems an unusual approach to take.

We are also concerned that there seems to be an equation and a language now of risk-based licensing and punishing those who are seen to be a risk, yet the equation and the methodology that the government uses to get to those processes I find somewhat concerning. I think those people who are doing the right thing should, obviously, not be punished and those people who do the wrong thing obviously should be punished, but the idea of a name and shame list does seem to be overkill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: We will also be supporting the amendment. I think it has been enunciated well by my colleagues. It does seem that people are being punished twice and some of the breaches in these situations that have been outlined to me can be very, very minor indeed, yet they are subject to what is effectively two punishments, so we will support the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be supporting this amendment as well. I do not believe licensees should be penalised twice.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 96 and 97 passed.

Clause 98.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Employment–1]—

Page 64, lines 29 to 32 [clause 98(1), inserted subsection (1b)]—Delete inserted subsection (1b)

This amendment removes a new regulation-making power that allows the regulations to regulate, restrict or prohibit advertising, sponsorship and other practices designed to promote or publicise liquor and its consumption. The government has listened to the concerns raised by industry and therefore moves this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I rise with a smile on my face to support this amendment. If I was in a less charitable frame of mind or a less charitable mood, I might unload on the current Attorney-General at his incompetence and negligence in handling this bill in another chamber when this amendment was moved. However, I am in a charitable mood and I will not belabour that particular point.

How this amendment ever got into the legislation, how the Attorney-General found himself in a position to agree to this during debate in the House of Assembly, certainly did not show the Attorney in the most flattering light. I am sure even some of his own hardworking staff members would have been horrified at the prospect of what he had done on the floor of the chamber without their knowledge and agreement. As I said, I am feeling in a charitable mood. I will not belabour the point. I am delighted to see that this minister in this chamber has seen the error of the ways and has moved to tidy it up on behalf of the government.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It will come as no surprise to members of this council that the Greens will be supporting this amendment. Indeed, I am not feeling quite so charitable but I certainly will not belabour the point. It is often said by the Attorney, I believe, that he brings these magnum opuses to this council and we somehow damage and diminish his creative work. Well, this was some creative work indeed in the other place and I am glad to see that the minister has admitted he was wrong.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Lucas–2]—

Page 64, after line 34 [clause 98, after subclause (2)]—Insert:

(2a) Section 138—after subsection (2a) insert:

(2b) A regulation required to be laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with the Subordinate Legislation Act 1978 that prescribes fees for the purposes of this Act may not prescribe or provide for any matter that is not prescribed in connection with such fees.

In my view, this is a very important amendment and I strongly urge members to consider it carefully and support it. As I outlined in the second reading, and the minister has just confirmed it, Anderson has actually potentially recommended a massive increase in licence fees for licensees in South Australia. That is, they currently collect about $2.65 million in licence fees, and Anderson is recommending massive increases of up to $7.2 million and the government has left open the possibility that they may well agree to licence fee increases up to that level.

Various members, I am sure, have had pieces of correspondence and emails from people saying, 'Our current licence fee is $20,000 and, if this goes ahead, it is going to go up to $200,000,' or some extraordinary increase depending on what the classification under the new licence arrangements is going to be. This is potentially draconian. The government is still saying as of today, 'We cannot tell you what the licence fees are,' so we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke, to use an old colloquial expression, and that is something which we should not be asked to buy.

The problem we have with regulations is that we are going to get a massive dump of regulations under a new act and, if one part of those happens to be a $4.5 million increase off a $2.5 million base in licence fees, if we move to disallow it at some stage, we are going to have to disallow the whole bally lot. Of course, we will then get the arguments from the government saying, 'We are now going to stop licence holders being able to trade after hours or licence holders to do this other thing because we are about to disallow a regulation that protects the safety of customers.' All those sorts of arguments are what the government will use to try to get the parliament to approve (or not to disallow) this massive increase in licence fees.

In essence, this amendment is saying you can have all your other regulations in one box set, if you want to, but the regulations in relation to licence fee increases will be a stand-alone licence fee increase and that will mean that, if a member wanted to argue that should it be disallowed, then we will be asked to disallow the actual licence fee increases. It is an eminently sensible position.

Personally, as someone who is a shadow treasurer, there will be increased costs in terms of implementing this new system. We accept that, therefore there is probably likely to be the need for an increased licence fee commensurate with that over and above what is in the forward estimates, which is just a CPI increase on the current base.

In moving this amendment, we are not doing so and assuming a position in relation to a licence fee outcome. What we are saying is: let's address that issue when it occurs and be able to address the issue solely concentrating on what the licence fee is, and we can address the other regulations separately as a box set if we wish. With that, I urge members to support this particular amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I have a question for the government on this one, because it concerns licence fees. Will the government confirm that they will be consulting with all stakeholders, including the South Australian Wine Industry Association, when they come to setting these fees?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that the government will consult with industry. I assume they would have been consulted with, as that is an important stakeholder, but we will take on board that suggestion. I think the honourable mover of the amendment would be aware that the government is opposing this amendment. While the government may choose to include fees in a separate set of regulations, a legislative obligation to do so may be unnecessarily restrictive. That is the government's view. On that basis, we oppose the amendment

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: We will be supporting the amendment. I think it is an eminently sensible amendment because it allows flexibility, if you like, for members to oppose the actual licensing fees that are going to be proposed. I think the Hon. Mr Lucas made a salient point, namely, that there is an expectation of increase, so I do not think that anyone will be surprised should that take place, but there needs to be some reasonable restriction on that. If we look at the cost pressures on not just hotels or licensed venues but all businesses, they are very significant in today's economy—power prices, wages, etc. The scope for very large increases in licensing fees will just be a bridge too far for a number of businesses. So we will be supporting the amendment to allow this chamber the possibility of denying regulations in the future, should it come to that.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will be supporting the opposition's amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will also be supporting the opposition's amendment. We do so because we have grave concerns about the practice of this parliament of not allowing separated regulations to be disallowed. Certainly, that would be our preference overall: to have all regulations able to be disallowed to stand alone, rather than as a package. We know that that is often used as a tool by government to get through things that it could not possibly get through the parliament. However, we have to make the choice, then, of not throwing out the baby with the dirty bathwater.

In this case, we also have a government that continues to equate risk with the time of day. This is not an episode of How I Met Your Mother. Things do happen after 2am that are sometimes actually okay. We believe that licensees should basically have licences that reflect their real risk and not some mythical time frame formula that has previously been applied by this government. We look forward to a reasonable document being proffered when we see the regulations for these new fees.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I believe my amendment No. 4 would be consequential to the previous amendment, so I will not be moving it.

Schedule passed.

Schedule 2.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 5 [Lucas–2]—

Page 69, lines 15 to 17 [Schedule 2, clause 4(2)(a)]—Delete paragraph (a)

This amendment is consequential to the passage of an earlier amendment.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (16:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.