HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LIQUOR LICENSING HOURS

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:29): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government a question on the subject of Mike Rann's proposed lockout of Adelaide's bars and clubs.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Concerns have again been expressed to me and my office in the past 24 hours in relation to this ongoing controversy about Premier Rann's proposed lockout of bars and clubs in the Adelaide CBD. I raised earlier this week concerns from some licensees about what they felt was undue pressure from police officers from the Licensing Enforcement Unit trying to encourage them to sign the voluntary administration order to agree to Premier Rann's proposed lockout.

In the past 24 hours I have been contacted by another licensee who has indicated that on a recent Saturday evening—which is, of course, the busiest evening for most of these venues—officers from the Licensing Enforcement Unit asked that particular licensee (who has not signed the administration order) whether they were prepared to sign the administration order. The licensee on that busy Saturday evening said that they were not prepared to sign that particular administration order for the voluntary lockout.

The licensee claims that officers from the Licensing Enforcement Unit then proceeded on an inspection of the venue and pointed out to the licensee what in the licensee's opinion—and I accept that—were minor issues which the police officers identified as being problems in relation to their management of the site. Certainly, the licensees felt that they were being pressured indirectly by the police in relation to their unwillingness to sign that voluntary lockout order that Premier Mike Rann wants them to sign.

As well as that, sources within the Adelaide CBD hospitality and entertainment industry have indicated that they have had discussions with police officers from Hindley Street Police Station. They have highlighted to me that the normal complement for the Hindley Street Police Station is about seven, but that on the Sunday evening of the long weekend in June—which was a busy day for many venues in the Hindley Street entertainment precinct—there were only three officers in the Hindley Street Police Station responsible for controlling activity in that area. There was a single officer in the Hindley Street Police Station and there were two officers in one car patrolling that particular precinct.

Having spoken to a source within SAPOL, those same people also indicated that on occasions when there is an additional special patrol used on a Saturday evening the patrol is employed from 7.30 on the Saturday evening until 3.30 on the Sunday morning. When most of the activities causing concern (according to the police) would be occurring in the streets in the period from 3 o'clock through to 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the morning, why does a special patrol conclude its work at 3.30am when, conversely, there are fewer problems in the streets between 7.30 and 8.30 on a Saturday evening? My questions are:

1. Is it correct that on the Sunday of the June long weekend the Hindley Street Police Station had only three officers responsible for security in the Hindley Street precinct; that is, one officer in the station and two officers in a police car?

2. Is it also correct that when additional special patrols are brought in for a Saturday evening the time for those patrols is from 7.30pm through to 3.30am? If that is the case, what is the reasoning from the Police Commissioner for that particular timing? I accept this is not a decision for the Minister for Police, but does the Police Commissioner accept that there is any argument for changing the timing of that special patrol so that it concludes at, say, 5.30 or 6.30 on the Sunday morning?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:34): It is interesting how the Hon. Rob Lucas has been doing his best in the past few days to try to sabotage police efforts to get a voluntary lockout in the city. Apparently, this view is not shared by all his Liberal colleagues.

Yesterday, the member for Morphett presented a petition signed by 332 residents—and I accept that we cannot hold members responsible for petitions—requesting the house to urge the government to require licensed premises located in Glenelg to close no later than midnight. Remember that a voluntary lockout has been brought into place at Glenelg. Just like the proposed lockout for the CBD, that came out of discussions between local government, the police and the industry to try to deal with the issues of violence in the street—the very issues the Hon. Rob Lucas raised two years ago. Yesterday in parliament, Dr McFetridge said:

This morning I had leave from parliament for a little while to attend a meeting in Holdfast Bay with the council, the police, the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner and DRUG ARM, who do a fantastic job. We were talking about whether there is a need to curb the opening hours in the Bay and whether there is a problem with binge drinking. Chief Inspector Graeme Adcock was there who gave us some real insight into what is going on. The statistics have actually been going down through good policing in the past couple of years. He had some very interesting video footage of Moseley Square very early in the morning between one and three o'clock in morning.

Very little was going on. The perception of antisocial behaviour is there and the noise is there and, certainly, we need to cope with some issues. A lot of younger people come down there and the Bay has been a fantastic place for years and years, so people want to come there. The younger people go there and they are getting a bit out of control, but it is not over the top. It is not a bad place to be, and the police are doing a fantastic job.

What has happened down at Glenelg—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, that is what some people want down there, yes; and that is why the member for Morphett presented the petition on behalf of his constituents. The honourable member said that very little was going on and that, up until three o'clock, there was relatively little bad behaviour. Of course, what they have down at Glenelg is the voluntary lockout after that period. All that is happening is that, following the success of these measures and the fantastic job that police are doing down at Glenelg (acknowledged by the local Liberal member), the police are trying to do the same thing in the city.

What is highly regrettable is that members of the opposition, such as the Hon. Mr Lucas, have been seeking to undermine and sabotage the efforts of police in trying to get a voluntary lockout within the CBD, which would have the potential to provide the benefits to young people in the city, as has clearly happened at Glenelg. No-one is saying that licensed premises should not be able to serve alcohol after 3am. All the voluntary lockout is trying to do is to stop people wandering around. After 3am, if they are wandering the streets, people are more likely than not to have had too much to drink. If they want to keep drinking they can stay, and there are plenty of establishments where they can do that.

However, through the lockout and once they leave premises they would not go back. Now, what is wrong with having a trial within the CBD to see whether that is working? I think it is highly regrettable that the Hon. Mr Lucas should be seeking, as he has done, to undermine the attempts to prevent that lockout being agreed to. Where the police have had the cooperation of publicans in the community, such as those at Glenelg, it has been appreciated by the local community. In relation to police numbers, of course, there is a station in Hindley Street, but Adelaide's Local Service Area has its main base at Norwood, which provides the patrols for that area.

The honourable member would be well aware from questions he asked several years ago that, when required, police have the capacity to bring in additional resources through the patrol base. They have the capacity to bring in extra patrols when that is required. Perhaps the Hon. Mr Lucas should talk to some of these publicans he keeps supporting and try to persuade them to give it a go. He should try to cooperate with the police to enable a lockout trial to see whether in fact it does have benefits, because less violence in the city will not only make it a safer place for all South Australians but it will—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is the old story: in government we try to put a fence at the top of the cliff rather than having ambulances down at the bottom, but not Mr Lucas: he says, 'Get another ambulance down there as people keep going over.' This matter has been highlighted in the media, and everyone who has been in the city would be aware that there is an issue with binge drinking, particularly among young people. The government believes that, in relation to this growing problem, a range of issues are involved: not just extra police, which of itself will not resolve the problem of binge drinking. In particular, it will not provide any benefit to the health of the young people suffering from over-consumption of alcohol, and that should concern us all.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT