HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LIQUOR LICENSING (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 May 2011.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (11:06): I rise to make a few comments in relation to this bill—particularly, in relation to the behaviour and activities in Hindley Street and some of our entertainment areas—from the perspective of the shadow minister for police and the discussions I have had with police over the past four or five years while I have been the shadow. I refer particularly not to the senior executive group of police or the commissioner but those who are delivering the service out on the street in those areas in our community.

It is important to note that the government claims that its bill is aimed at stopping the antisocial behaviour, the poor behaviour, of patrons exiting these particular venues in Hindley Street and other entertainment areas, but Hindley Street is the one that I would like to particularly focus on. It is interesting to note that, a number of times in the last few years, SAPOL has had an operation called Operation Double Up where it has provided twice the number of police officers on duty in Hindley Street and there has been a significant reduction in antisocial behaviour in Hindley Street as a result of these extra police officers.

I have also been told that recently there were some 40 undercover police officers in Hindley Street—and these figures may not be entirely accurate but certainly there was a large number, up to 40 undercover police officers in Hindley Street—but only a handful, about 10 or a dozen, uniformed officers. Surely, as you would know, Mr President, from your days growing up (and all of us know, I suspect), when it comes to behaviour on the open road and speeding or antisocial behaviour, people behave better and have more respect for their fellow members of the community and other people's property if there is a bigger, more visible police presence.

The Hon. P. Holloway: You don't catch them, though?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Paul Holloway interjects, 'You don't catch them.' Well, is it about making the place safe or is it about catching people? I understand what he is saying. On the Easter long weekend, coming back from a weekend up the river—and I am digressing slightly—on the freeway I saw one police car marked as a police car with a traffic sign on its roof and I saw five other cars with police officers in them that were unmarked cars. Clearly, that was not designed to be giving a road safety message: that was about catching people.

What a crazy thing to try to do on one of the busiest weekends of the year, to be actually out trying to catch people rather than just slowing everybody down and having a visible police presence. We all know that a clearly visible police presence is one of the solutions. Certainly the information that rank-and-file police officers give to me is that, when we have Operation Double Up in Hindley Street, antisocial behaviour diminishes significantly.

It is not only about having more police officers on the beat. We have seen this government, while the Hon. Paul Holloway was minister and the Premier and now the Hon. Kevin Foley as minister, bragging about having record numbers of police, yet we do not actually see them out in our community providing that visible deterrent.

Another issue, of course, is the commissioner's absolute reluctance to provide police officers with tasers on the hip. It has been proven around the world that, again, that is a very valuable deterrent. I know; I was with the leader, Isobel Redmond, when she was tasered prior to the last election. I have seen it firsthand. I am sure that, with one or two people—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, I don't think so. The Hon. Paul Holloway thinks this a little bit of a joke. Clearly, it is all about rebuilding respect in our community for police. Under this government, that has declined; there is no respect for our police officers. When you talk to the rank and file police officers, they want the tools of the trade to be able to do the jobs they are trained to do.

You have only to look at the quality of the police station in Hindley Street; it is small and poorly laid out, almost as though the government does not really care about it. If they were really serious about providing a solid, first-class presence in Hindley Street, they would scrap that police station and invest some money in a better, bigger, more prominent police station right in the middle of the Hindley Street precinct. Again, as I have said, the rank and file police officers tell me that it is all about having a visible police presence and the community, if there is an issue, know where they can go to get some assistance.

I am pleased with one aspect of this legislation and that is the on-the-spot fine that is proposed for antisocial behaviour in Hindley Street. That is something that the rank and file police officers have been calling for years and years; for as long as I can recall, as the shadow minister, that is what they have wanted. Again, it is about the tools of the trade: it is a tool to be able to hurt people in the hit pocket. If they are doing something stupid, they need to feel as though it hurts them in the hip pocket. At times, when people have had a couple of drinks, maybe they make poor judgements but, at the end of the day, if they are $300, $400 or $500 worse off as a result of their actions, they are unlikely to go back and do it again at some point in the future.

If you look at what happens in Sydney, the Sydney city council has a person who is the manager of the Night Time Economy, and I think the Adelaide City Council would be well served to adopt a similar approach. I heard the manager of the Night Time Economy in Sydney, who is a woman, being interviewed by Matt and Dave on 891 some weeks ago, and it was in relation to people urinating in public and the mess that is caused in the streets, especially in Kings Cross.

What they have done in Sydney is put in a number of portable urinals. They are distributed by the council on the Friday evening and put in place. I have not seen them myself, but my understanding is that they are of a stainless steel nature, just a little cubicle men can walk into and do what they need to do. They are obviously connected to the sewer. They are there for two nights: Friday night and Saturday night.

You are frowning at me, Mr President, as though, 'Why on earth would you have that?' The manager of the Sydney Night Time Economy said that every weekend in Kings Cross is like a major event, and she used our major events here, like the Tour Down Under, the Clipsal, the Festival of Arts, the Fringe; on those big events, the community provides extra toilets. She said, 'In Sydney, we don't see a Friday or Saturday night as being any different from any other major public event.

So, the Sydney city council has provided these temporary urinals on Friday and Saturday nights. They are hosed down in the early hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings so that they are clean and ready for use and then they are removed again. Clearly, that is something, I think, the city council should be looking at here as well.

This seems to me to be some legislation where the government really has been too lazy to try to come up with a collaborative solution to this problem. They have looked perhaps at the easy way out and said, 'Well, let's just shut the city down. Let's just close it off at 4 o'clock because, at the end of the day, that's going to be easier.' Well, that is not the solution. As I said, Sydney has a manager of the Night Time Economy. I noticed recently that our new and youngest Lord Mayor ever, Stephen Yarwood, was quoted as saying:

After going under cover roaming Adelaide's Hindley Street party strip, Mr Yarwood said that it was clear the city often turned nasty early in the morning as people became intoxicated and abusive and violent. Early yesterday, he skipped over pools of body fluid, dodged shoulder bumps and offered sympathy to the incapacitated and sick, often stopping to talk...to [people].

As members would know, I have had the privilege of spending some time on a trip overseas looking at urban development, high density residential development and entertainment precincts, and Mr Yarwood was on that particular trip. He knows that the way to make these places safe is to provide the best of facilities and have more and more people active in the streets.

I am also told that in Mr Yarwood's trip there were two examples, sadly, where somebody had vomited on the side of the street, unlike the article which talks about pools of body fluid, etc. I think the article in the Advertiser about Mr Yarwood's visit to Hindley Street has been embellished quite significantly. The government is clearly using a blunt tool here to try to come up with the solution, rather than working with the community.

Mr Yarwood, too, is the youngest Lord Mayor we have had elected. Mr Yarwood was supported by the younger people in the community and ran a very successful campaign. I wonder whether he has actually gone and spoken to the people who voted for him, and whether they are the people who would like to see the city close down. He has been very quick to jump on board with the government on a number of issues, and I wonder whether that is because of a promise we might see later today, whether there is money in the budget for Victoria Square. I hope that our council and our Lord Mayor have not been brought off by the government with the promise of extra money for Victoria Square.

One of the amendments I also notice that has been tabled by the government is to close the parliamentary bar between the hours of 4am and 7am. I am a bit surprised at that because the only time in the nine years I have been a member of parliament that the parliamentary bar, that I can recall, has been open after 4am was when the Hons Mark Parnell and Ann Bressington were sharing the benefit of their very extensive wisdom on the WorkCover bill, and we went for some considerable time. That is the only time I can recall it being open. We all know that the bar is only open until 30 minutes—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You can have your go in a minute.

The Hon. P. Holloway: You are quite happy to misrepresent—

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr President, can you protect me from the feather duster? He is finished; it is time he left. We all know that the parliamentary bar is open 30 minutes after the rising of the house. Once in nine years it has been open because we had two members who were talking for a considerable length of time. I do not see any need at all to close the parliamentary bar or prohibit the serving of alcohol through this particular bill.

Clearly Michelle Lensink is our lead speaker. This is a blunt tool. The government has not listened to the rank-and-file police officers, the people delivering the security and community service on the street, and there are a lot of other ways we could have achieved an outcome without this blunt tool of trying to shut down the city.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (11:18): I rise to speak in opposition to an ill-considered piece of legislation by the Rann government, another in a long line, sadly. This particular measure has a long history. We know what is the long-term plan of the Labor government should it continue in office; that is, whilst this measure is looking at closing down Adelaide virtually from 4am, the long-term plan, as previously espoused by representatives of the government, is for a lockout at 2am or 3am. Mr President, you will be well aware that this is what was being discussed some two or three years ago.

You will remember, Mr President, that at the time a Facebook petition was organised. I know what an avid follower of Facebook and Twitter you are, Mr President, and indeed members of the government are; and, in a very short space of time, more than 16,000 people—predominantly young people—signed up in support of that Facebook group, which was 'Don't let Mike Rann close down Adelaide's pubs and clubs at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. in the morning'.

It was probably the first example of the use of Facebook as, I guess, a mass-mobilising tool in terms of a political issue here in South Australia. As I said, in a relatively short space of time, more than 16,000 predominantly young people actively engaged to express their view. It was interesting to note that, at the time, vitriol was being poured on me and the Liberal Party by Labor members like the Hon. Bernard Finnigan and others in the government, attacking the issue.

However, I do note that in The Advertiser on 11 July 2008 the government was forced to respond by committing at that time to 'No 3am lockout law, says Rankine'. The article continues:

The state government will not introduce new laws to lock people out of licensed venues after 3am. Consumer affairs minister Jennifer Rankine yesterday said the government would not legislate for a lockout but supported police efforts to gain unanimous voluntary support for the plan.

So, the government realised that it was not going to get anywhere with its plan for the 3am lockout. However, what it sought to do was to impose it through an endeavour with the commissioner and the police to put pressure on licence holders in the CBD to sign up in a voluntary fashion to the 3am lockout. The Advertiser article goes on to say:

The government is understood to have moved to dispel claims that it was going to enforce a lockout for all city venues in response to an online petition started by Liberal backbencher Rob Lucas denouncing the move. It has attracted more than 13,000 supporters [at that particular time]. Meanwhile, police Assistant Commissioner Grant Stevens said an investigation found there was no evidence to support the claim that officers have offered inducements to licensees to sign up for a lockout trial. Nevertheless, he said, he had reported the claim—made by a radio talkback caller yesterday—to the Anti-Corruption Branch.

What that article indicated was that the government, having decided that it wanted to impose a lockout of 2am or 3am, through the force of public opposition—in particular from young people in South Australia—was forced to back off. I know that in the Labor caucus there were one or two Labor MPs who did not agree with the view of the minister, the Premier and the government and put pressure on the minister and the government to back off. That is why minister Rankine at that time was forced to come out and say that they were not going to try to do that because they knew they could not get down that path. What they sought to do was to impose it through the back door by pressuring licence holders at that particular time.

Credit to a small group of licence holders, and West End traders in particular, at that time who, despite fearsome pressure from the government, the police, the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner and others to sign up to this voluntary lockout, continued to oppose (as indeed is their right) that particular proposal from the government and were successful in the end. That was the government's intention. It is now regrouping and it is trying to impose a 4am lockout. But, Mr President, mark my words, if they are successful with this, this is just the foot in the door, because they will come back and say, 'There is still violence now between midnight and 4am. We need now to bring back the restriction from 4am to 3am or 2 am', which was their original intention.

I think the logical question to ask of the government is: why on earth are they moving down this path? Some cynics have suggested that some in the Labor caucus thought that perhaps it was the only way that they could actually get the Hon. Kevin Foley off the streets of Adelaide, not only protecting the Hon. Kevin Foley but protecting the image and the brand of the Labor government. Of course, some wiser heads intervened and said that the last two times that the Hon. Mr Foley has been snotted, or allegedly assaulted, were not after 4am. One of them was around about 9.30 or 10 o'clock in the evening and the other one, of course, was allegedly at around about 3.30am. So, if the cynics were right and they were seeking to protect the Hon. Mr Foley and the government's image, a 4am lockout was not going to be successful.

I suspect that the real answer is that this government is just run by a mob of wowsers, led by the Premier, minister Gago, the former leader in this house (Hon. Bernard Finnigan) and the former attorney-general Michael Atkinson. I think that is the problem, Mr President; that is, those of you in the Labor caucus are being led by a mob of wowsers—anti-fun and anti-young people. The sad reality is that the majority have been dragged by the nose to support legislation like this in the chamber which, as I said, is just the foot in the door. It is just the foot in the door to introduce and impose even more draconian restrictions on the licence holders in the Adelaide CBD and on young people, in particular.

I agree with the views previously expressed by some of my colleagues—the Hons Michelle Lensink and David Ridgway—and have strongly argued for a period of time that we need to treat the Adelaide CBD but, in particular, the West End and Hindley Street, as our pre-eminent entertainment precinct in South Australia. That is what it is. We do not have many. We are not like Melbourne, Sydney and, perhaps, other bigger cities around the world. I guess, to a degree, the Gouger Street area has been growing as an entertainment precinct in recent years as well, but it is acknowledged that the West End and Hindley Street is our entertainment precinct. It is and should be recognised by governments as different. It is and should be recognised by governments as requiring additional support, supervision, control, etc., in relation to the level of policing for that particular area.

I think that some of the licence holders have pointed out that, when there is an event like Schoolies Week at Victor Harbor, the Big Day Out, or whatever it is, significant numbers of police are properly diverted to those areas for those one-off events. The reality is that, in relation to our entertainment precinct, for Friday evening and Saturday evening, basically, there are significant numbers of people, not just young people, who visit this entertainment precinct. The simple solution—as the Hon. Mr Ridgway and others have pointed out—is that there has to be a permanent increase in police presence, particularly on Friday and Saturday evenings, all year round, in this entertainment precinct. There needs to be a different level of policing in this precinct for those particular hours.

Now, for most weeks of the year, you could go down Hindley Street on any other night of the week—from Monday through to Thursday—after midnight and into the early hours of the morning and fire a cannon up and down Hindley Street without doing too much injury to too many people. There are not significant numbers of people in that entertainment precinct during that period. If there is a special event—World Cup soccer or whatever—then it is different. It is essentially Friday or Saturday nights (or if it is a long weekend it may well be Sunday nights) where what is required is additional policing.

It is not sufficient, once a year with publicity and all guns blazing, metaphorically speaking, for the police to go out and say, 'We're going to blitz with operation this or operation that,' and, 'We're going to arrest so many people and do this and that,' for one weekend in a year, then pat themselves on the back thinking that is going to be the solution to what is potentially an ongoing issue. What is required is that level of policing on Friday and Saturday nights in an ongoing way.

It should not be beyond the wit and wisdom of SAPOL, the commissioner and the government of the day to implement such a policing plan. This government, when it suits it, hides behind 'These are operational issues; we will never direct,' etc., yet at every election they are quite happy to direct the commissioner to build a new police station in some marginal seat somewhere.

The Hon. Mr Holloway was never able to explain the difference between his oft-quoted plea: 'This is operational and you can't direct the commissioner; how outrageous is this suggestion!' yet at every election his government or his party was prepared to direct the police commissioner to open up a new police station in some marginal seat for partisan political advantage.

The Hon. Mr Holloway and the government always wanted to have their cake and eat it too; that is, when they wanted to direct the police commissioner they were quite happy to do so, but on other occasions it pleaded purity of thought and action and would not be involved. I have argued this before and I say it again: there is nothing wrong with the government of the day saying, 'We are going to provide SAPOL, as we did at the last election, with an extra 400 police over the next four years.'

There is nothing wrong with saying, 'We have an expectation that 20, 30 or 40 of those (or whatever is required) will be posted as a special force or unit or whatever you want to call it permanently in the CBD to police the entertainment precincts on a Friday or Saturday evening; that is our priority. We, on behalf of taxpayers, are going to give you tens of millions of dollars' worth of extra police, in terms of 400 extra police, but what we are saying to you is one of the priorities out of the 400 is that a small percentage of those have to go in that area.'

That sort of policy commitment is no different to the commitment that the Premier and the former police minister made when they said, 'We're going to get extra resources to SAPOL, but only on the condition that in this particular marginal Labor seat you build a police station or you extend the police station operating hours in that particular area.' So, there is nothing wrong with that.

If this government will not act then this is an issue for an alternative government as it approaches the next election, in terms of policy development, to consider and reflect upon and decide if it is prepared, as we have done previously, to make that sort of commitment post-2014. That is the solution—not the complete solution but a significant part of the solution—to the issues that need to be addressed in the entertainment precinct.

The other issue is that of issuing a challenge to the minister to provide figures in this house to validate the claim that most of the violent incidents that they are talking about are occurring between the hours of 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock. I do not profess to have a time-classified breakdown of violent incidents in the CBD; hopefully, the government has access to some of that sort of information.

Anecdotally, having reflected on the reports that come in from time to time about violent incidents in the CBD and gone back over the last couple of years, the majority are listed in the hours prior to 4am. A lot of them may well be between midnight and 4am. As I said, one of the allegations from the former treasurer was that it was 9.30 or 10 o'clock on a Saturday evening. Yes, there are incidents between 4am and 7am, and it would be foolish to deny that that is the case, but there are also a significant number of incidents pre-4am about which there have been complaints.

That is why I am saying that this is just a foot in the door for those who want to support the government's position. As sure as eggs, if they get 4am in there, they will come back and say, 'There are a lot of incidents between 2am and 4am; we are now going to need to slide back the restriction from 4am to 10am.' As I said, in my view, that is the long-held view of significant people within this government and, if they are allowed to have their way, that will be the position that they will seek to impose in the future.

I note that all members have been lobbied by a significant number of groups. I will briefly refer to perhaps two that I would normally quote, the first being United Voice. That particular group would be tied in with the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union—I think that is the official title. In its submission to all members, it raised concerns about the government's proposal and legislation particularly regarding issues that some other members referred to in relation to hospitality workers who will suffer from these proposed changes to the licensing laws. The submission states:

The attraction and retention of workers is already an issue for the industry and the cut in hours may see workers chasing jobs in other sectors rather than see their take-home pay cut and having to deal with increasingly angry patrons. Our members will not be able to avail themselves of the additional taxi services that have been promised as a sweetener for the proposed changes. Many members live in the outer northern and southern suburbs and a $70 plus taxi fare is beyond their means, they will have to wait several hours for public transport to commence. Thus being exposed to the apparent dangers on our streets.

There is also a letter from the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia (YACSA), which states:

However, YACSA acknowledges that the majority of young people who use alcohol do so responsibly, in order to enjoy themselves, within the law and in accordance with societal norms. Therefore, YACSA asserts that young people have a right to feel safe should they choose to visit licensed premises or other entertainment venues.

...Specifically, a large number of individuals, potentially intoxicated, will be leaving every venue at approximately the same time. YACSA is very concerned about the likelihood of conflict in a situation such as this, and looks to the state government for further information as to how this will be managed.

Those two submissions raise a couple of issues. Issues relating to hospitality workers have been addressed by a number of other speakers, and I will not go into that in detail. This issue of large numbers of people being dumped on the streets at 4am is an issue that will need to be addressed. At the moment, of course, we have staggered finishing hours. Some venues close as early as midnight, some venues close at 2am, 3am, 4am, 5am, right through to 6am or 7am. Some venues, like the Casino and a limited number of others, can trade right through. So, there is a staggering of management of primarily young people—or younger people—coming back into the entertainment precinct and having to find their way home.

One of the issues being raised by YACSA and a number of the other groups is the fact that public transport services by and large do not commence until 6am or 7am. I know that there are a number of young people, when this issue was first raised (and I did some community radio) who made the point that for many of them they would finish their clubbing at 4am or 5am, they would go to a pizza place or somewhere else and have either a very late supper or an early breakfast, I guess, and then would catch their train or their bus home at 7am to get home at breakfast time to wherever they were living.

Of course, what we are going to have with a 4am closure is these young people not being able to afford a $70 taxi fare or whatever it might happen to be, obviously having to stay within the CBD precinct before they can access public transport. That is an issue that the government will need to address, if it gets its way.

I think the other point that this government just does not realise is—and I guess it demonstrates how out of touch the leaders of this government are in terms of contemporary society—the make-up and the background of the young people who enter the entertainment precinct on these Friday and Saturday nights. The reality is that many of them, because they do not have access to significant dollars themselves, will consume a reasonable proportion of alcohol in small groups at their homes or wherever at what they would see as a much cheaper rate.

Young women in particular, with their vodka and mixes, will buy their bottles of vodka with their various mixers that they mix with that and will drink a significant amount of that so that, in their terms, they are in a good mood and happy, ready to club and rage, before they head off to the clubs. It means, of course, that when they get to the clubs, if they are having to buy their own drinks, they are not having to spend anywhere between $6 and $12 a drink, depending on which particular club or venue you go to, each and every time you want an alcoholic drink.

So, it is much cheaper for them, and many of them organise their evenings in that way. At 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock they get a taxi into the CBD or, if they have a parent, their parents take them into the CBD and drop them off, and they actually start their evening's entertainment at 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock at night. Their whole mindset in terms of entertainment is different to that of our generation. For many of us, when first we hit the night scene, the strict instruction from your mother was that you need to be home by midnight. For many of these young people, as I said, they are not actually heading out into Adelaide until 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock at night.

Their lifestyle and their life cycle, whether we like it or not, is that from 11 o'clock to 12 o'clock through until 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the morning they are at these various nightclubs and venues enjoying themselves. When I have recounted that at various functions, some people then say, 'This is outrageous.' This is the attitude of the Premier and minister Gago that it is outrageous, that if you can not have enough fun before 4am on a Sunday morning, then too bad, we are going to stop you.

The reality is that it is a bit like the anti-gambling Nazis that we see. The vast majority of young people happily enjoy themselves in these clubs and hotels—the music, their friendship groups, meeting new people or whatever it might happen to be—without any problem for anybody else in those venues or for the rest of us. That is what they enjoy, and why shouldn't they be allowed to enjoy it?

If there is 1 or 2 per cent of the group—and, inevitably, there will be—that is the cause of a problem, then they should be the ones cracked down upon. If they are involved in violent incidents or disorderly behaviour in a public place or offensive behaviour, then an increased police presence cracking down on those troublemakers is the solution.

It is not the solution—as this anti-fun, anti young people government would seek to do—to say that we are going to stop all of you from enjoying yourselves after 4am. Everything gets closed down with the exception of the Casino and that is the end of it. As I said, it will not just be young people who will be distressed to hear that plan. I am sure that the Hon. Kevin Foley would be mightily distressed if this particular legislation were to go through.

As I said, we are seeing this right across the board, sadly, in areas like gambling legislation and now in terms of liquor licensing where, because you have 1 or 2 per cent who either cannot help themselves or cause trouble for others, then we are going to smash the overwhelming majority who are not causing trouble, who are just enjoying themselves. We are going to clamp down on them. We are going to stop them from doing what it is that they enjoy, and that is having a drink with friends in the club, listening to some music, meeting new people at whatever hour of the day or night suits them.

The challenge I put to the minister in terms of her response is: can she bring back to the house the evidence she has of the extent of the violent incidents and assaults between 4am and 7am? Also, I have seen some figures in relation to the percentage of total alcohol-related incidents that relate to the Hindley Street precinct. I seek advice from the minister as to what evidence is available to the government in relation to the percentage of total alcohol-related incidents from the police statistics that relate to Hindley Street and the entertainment precinct of Adelaide.

Certainly the figures that I have seen would seem to indicate that a very small percentage of total alcohol-related crime comes from the Hindley Street precinct. I think in this it is incumbent on the government to produce the evidence to demonstrate why it is seeking to impose such draconian restrictions on people who may well want to enjoy themselves between 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock.

There are just a couple of other specific issues. This particular bill, if it is successful, does involve very significant increases in powers for the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner. I am not sure what his official title is these days but we all understand, the commissioner in charge of this particular area. I must indicate—and I will address this issue if we get to the committee stage of the bill—that I have some concerns with the significant increase in powers going to this particular individual.

I must admit that personally I think the jury is out on the new commissioner. He seems to have a particular emphasis and approach to his new task. I am prepared to reserve final judgment but, certainly, the early indications to me are not too encouraging, and I am certainly concerned at the potential for any significant increase in powers going to this particular office.

The other particular issues that have been raised relate to the Casino. I am of the view (and always have been) that the Casino is a separate and distinct establishment and, for a variety of reasons over the years, it has been treated differently. I can understand how the lobby in this case has sought to distinguish the Casino from other licensed establishments.

My position is that I do not think that there should be these restrictions on the other licensed establishments, as indeed I do not think there should be the restrictions on the Casino. So, my position is consistent; it is the government's that is inconsistent, because it is imposing restrictions on all of the competitors of the Casino and not on the Casino. Our position is consistent, and that is that the Casino should be able to continue but the licensed establishments should not have these further restrictions imposed, particularly as I think a number of cases have been made for nearby competitors which would be significantly disadvantaged if the government's legislation was to be implemented as it is at the moment.

I do note that there is one provision about which I put a question to the minister. I guess it is fair to say that I think that most people in this debate have agreed that the current minister's handling of the legislation has been an unmitigated disaster so far. I guess that, for those who are used to working with the current minister, that is not altogether surprising. That is par for the course, I guess, in terms of the handling of the minister's portfolios across the board, but she seems to have made a mess of her handling of this legislation, upsetting just about everybody who is involved in the debate.

Of course, what we saw after the recent debate was the minister being forced to come up with what she claimed to be a significant new approach; that is, she had to amend significantly her own legislation. We have 11 or 12 pages of amendments, which is just an indication of what a mess her original bill was. Once the industry and every commentator had a look at the legislation, they realised what a mess the minister had made of the legislation and, embarrassingly, not only for the minister but for the government, the minister was forced to introduce 11 pages of amendments to a bill that is probably not many more pages than that. I think it is a 14-page bill, and the minister has had to introduce 11 pages of amendments to her own legislation. That is embarrassing in itself—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, it is embarrassing in itself. There are very few, even within the government's ranks, prepared to defend the minister's performance generally but also in relation to the bill we are debating, and that is because it is indefensible. I think that is, as I said, commonly accepted by all who have had a look at the minister's handling of the legislation.

What we have now are these 11 pages of amendments—not only 11 pages; I think there is another amendment now in relation to Parliament House. So, 12 pages of amendments. We have had two versions of amendments from the minister to her own legislation.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Oh, there's another one. The Hon. Michelle Lensink tells me that the minister now has another amendment, which none of us has seen, on the way. No wonder the—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Thank goodness for the Legislative Council! No wonder the legislative program is in such chaos when the minister is trying to handle it and we still have not seen all her changes of heart trying to fix up the legislation that she has introduced and made a mess of. So, we clearly will not be able to continue with the committee stages because the minister is still trying to further amend her own legislation, evidently.

The first series of amendments, not the second and third, raise as many questions as does the original legislation. Sections of the media have had the line spun to them by the minister and her spin doctors that this has been a significant backdown or change of heart by the government in terms of the 4am restriction.

I point out to members that the new clause 21A that now is to be inserted, which is this proposed exemption or exception and headed 'Extended trading authorisations for 4am to 7am to be rare', is a most unusual piece of legislative drafting and states:

It is the intention of Parliament that, in order to reduce alcohol-related crime and anti-social behaviour and to otherwise minimise harm associated with the consumption of liquor, trade in liquor between 4am and 7am for consumption on or off licensed premises should rarely be authorised and any extended trading authorisation for such trade should only be granted if there is some special reason to believe that the trade will contribute to, and not detract from, the amenity of community life and is in the public interest that it be granted.

Subclause (2) is then headed:

Commissioner to determine applications relating to trade between 4am and 7am in absolute discretion.

This is one of the issues that, if I was in the industry, I would have concern about. It continues:

The following provisions apply to an application for an extended trading authorisation, or for variations of trading hours previously fixed in relation to a licence, to the extent that an authorisation is sought in the application to trade in liquor during all or any of the hours between 4am and 7am on any day:

(a) it is not subject to section 17, and

(b) it is to be determined by the Commissioner, in his or her absolute discretion (and accordingly section 22(2) will apply).

There are then further provisions in (3). In that first subclause, 'Extended trading authorisations...to be rare, 'It is the intention of the parliament...' is an extraordinary piece of legislative drafting. It is the sort of thing that goes in a statement to parliament, a second reading speech or whatever it is. It is not the sort of clause that is normally drafted to go within a statute. It is an indication of the problems the minister is having in terms of handling this legislation and trying to progress it through both houses of parliament.

Whilst some of the media have said that no longer will the 4am to 7am restriction be there; there will be this exemption, the fine print is saying that this will be rare and will only be in exceptional circumstances, in essence, that the commissioner in his or her absolute discretion would issue such an exemption for a particular establishment.

There are dozens of issues that spring from that, but my specific question in relation to the Casino and the other provisions in the minister's 11 pages of amendments is whether the minister can explain, if the legislation is now to be introduced with the government's amendments, what is the impact on the Casino? That is, does the Casino have to seek some sort of exception in relation to its existing operations 24 hours a day?

To that end I refer members and the minister also in particular to clause 17 of her amendments, where it talks about the special circumstances licence held in respect of the Casino and breaks it up into various hours between 4am and midnight on any day, between 7am and midnight on any day, and various other provisions that relate to the 24-hour period within which the Casino currently operates.

As I understand it, I have put questions to the Casino representatives, and their initial response—and this was just an initial response and they would obviously need to consider their advice to both the government and the opposition, I guess, in due course—was, well, they were really wanting to hear from the government what the impact of the changes would be on their operations and whether or not—and these were their words—they would get a permanent exemption. As I said, that was their initial response from their representatives to me, that is, they were waiting on the government to find out whether or not they would get a permanent exemption.

I seek clarification from the minister as to what a permanent exemption in relation to their trading hours means as it relates to the Casino. If we are introducing changes and if they are going to be given a permanent exemption, on whose judgement is that made? Is that just the commissioner's or is it the government's, and can a future commissioner reverse a decision of a previous commissioner to give a permanent exemption? What legal status does a permanent exemption have, I guess, and how could it be changed in legal terms at some stage in the future? Certainly, I seek a response to that. I put the question to the Casino representatives and, as I said, at this stage they have been unable to give me any definitive reply.

The final issue I want to address is this ridiculous issue of Parliament House. With the greatest respect to my associates and acquaintances within the lobbyists who support the hotel industry, this is a very clever but ridiculous furphy. I can understand the issue of the Casino, because that is a valid competitor for public patronage. If everyone else is closed down, well, the young people and older people can all flood into the Casino; so, that is an issue of competition. The Parliament House one, as I said, was a nice furphy, and it has forced this government, again in its own incompetence, to introduce a ridiculous amendment, but it is a furphy.

The people who are locked out of the Electric Circus, Limbo, the Rocket Bar, or whatever it is, at 4am in the morning—even as the Hon. Mr Ridgway said, one night in nine years that he can recall that the Parliament House bar might have been open between 4am and 7am—will not be able to flee those venues and arrive en masse at North Terrace and demand to be served in the Parliament House bar between 4am and 7am on that one morning in the last nine years it has actually been open.

As I said, it was a cute point. It got some traction in the media; and, with the ineptness of the current minister and the government, we now see a further amendment being moved by this inept, incompetent minister to the legislation in relation to Parliament House. My understanding—and the minister can correct me if my understanding is wrong—is that we do not have in Parliament House a liquor licence. Unlike all these other establishments, there is no liquor licence which relates to Parliament House. The actual amendment the minister is moving is: 'Liquor is not to be sold in Parliament House between 4am and 7am on any day.'

It does not actually refer specifically to the parliamentary bar. I am assuming that, as members will know, most ministers, for example, do not necessarily pay—well, almost never—cash for any alcohol purchases: they just put it on their ministerial account. I am assuming that, in legal terms, the minister's amendment that says liquor is not to be sold in Parliament House would cover ministers who, in the normal course of events, just order from the Parliament House bar a couple of bottles of Basket Press, or whatever it might happen to be, and say, 'Put it on my account.' So, let us assume that that is covered and this is not just a clever device from the minister to get around that.

The other avenue for obtaining alcohol at Parliament House is, of course, through either the catering manager or building services and the cellar which relates, obviously, to wine, and there are beer products and others down there as well. So, that has certainly been, at varying hours over the years, as I understand it, also accessible. Should members and ministers, in particular, want to purchase alcohol, they are able to purchase it from there and have it put on their ministerial accounts as well. So, one would assume that this provision is also going to need to be applied, if it is enacted, to those provisions as well.

I think the workability of this proposed amendment from the government and what exactly its practical impact would be on alcohol sales at Parliament House need to be explored, if we get to the committee stages. As I said, personally it just appears to me to be a bit of a nonsense amendment. The Hon. Mr Ridgway, in particular, has pointed out that, on one occasion in his nine years in the parliament, the members' bar has still been operating between those particular hours. On every other day of those nine years, the members' bar has not been.

There are a number of other issues that we will be able to explore in the committee stage. I would hope that the majority of members in this chamber would see this legislation for what it is: an incompetent piece of legislation, poorly targeted, from both a minister and a government sadly out of touch with contemporary South Australia, sadly out of touch with what the problem is and sadly out of touch with the real solution to the problems that might exist, that is, of course, a permanent increase in police presence in the entertainment precinct of Adelaide.

One would hope that a future government, different to this one, may be prepared to move decisively to act in this way, rather than the lily-livered, limp-wristed responses that we have seen from current ministers. I include former ministers for police and the current Premier in relation to these particular—

The Hon. P. Holloway: Who would pay for it?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, the taxpayers of South Australia always pay for the police force. Who do you think should pay for the police force? Unless, of course, the former minister for police is now saying that they are going to introduce user pays for the use of the police force. Now, we know, some—

The Hon. P. Holloway: I didn't say that at all.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, that is clearly the inference of what the former minister for police is flagging. Let me just highlight that the former minister for police, in an ill-considered interjection—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr President, let me respond to his ill-considered interjection. He asked: 'Who would pay?' Of course, because the taxpayers pay for the police force, clearly, the inference behind that is that this former minister for police—as he, thankfully, exits the stage from this chamber and the house—is still supporting a view, or appears to be supporting a view, that it is not going to be the taxpayers. He wants to implement some sort of user-pays policy in relation to the use of the police force.

If that is his view, and if that is the view of the current government, let him have the courage, after I finish, to stand up, nail his colours to the mast and indicate that he does not think the taxpayer should fund the police force but that, in addition to the taxpayers funding it, there should be an additional charge to users for police services in relation to this area. Did he introduce, when he was the minister, additional charges on Schoolies Week users at Victor Harbor when extra police were sent down? No response from the Hon. Mr Holloway.

The Hon. P. Holloway: Of course we did, but you want to spend $5 million or more.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Did he introduce extra charges for Big Day Out consumers when extra police, dog squads and drug squads had to go to the Big Day Out? Did he introduce extra charges for them? No response from the Hon. Mr Holloway. Did he introduce extra charges when extra police have to go to the cricket or to World Cup soccer for the consumers in that particular area because extra policing was required? No response again from the Hon. Mr Holloway.

It is convenient for the Hon. Mr Holloway to try to use these sorts of ridiculous arguments as they relate to young people wanting to enjoy themselves in the CBD and all of a sudden he wants to come the high and mighty: 'Who is going to pay for it? If there is going to be extra policing, then these young people and the hoteliers, etc., should pay for it.' That is his policy, but in every other area when extra policing is required he has never raised that before.

The Hon. P. Holloway: Somebody has to pay for it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That has never been a concern to him. It suits him, in relation to this, to use that ill-considered, ill-judged policy.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If that is the way he thinks, thank goodness he is in the exit lounge, on the way out of this chamber, already on the way out of this government.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Let him retire to the Hills where he can reflect upon what he might have done if he had been in government for a bit longer in relation to the police portfolio. I am not going to be diverted by these ill-tempered interjections from the former minister for police. I will not be diverted. I indicate my opposition to this particular bill and the government's ill-considered policies.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (12:11): I rise briefly to speak on the Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. Like other honourable members, I agree that something needs to be done to curb antisocial behaviour and violence, especially that resulting from the excessive consumption of alcohol. However, I am not convinced that the bill before us is the most effective way of achieving that.

On the one hand, the benefit of the bill itself is that it ensures gaming machine operations cannot be conducted between 4am and 7am, thereby creating a mandatory break in play at poker machine venues, which is very encouraging. On the other hand, the bill provides an exemption from the mandatory shutdown for the Casino, which I am particularly opposed to. The reasons provided by the government in relation to the Casino's exemption are also less than convincing. I also question whether enough thought has gone into the issue of public transport to deal with the crowds of people who will inevitably need to find their way home after a big night out should a curfew be implemented, and the issue of pre-loading which, I understand, is prevalent amongst revellers.

The Premier has often promoted the idea of whole-of-government solutions to problems. I believe this would be an ideal circumstance where a whole-of-government response could be utilised to address the issues of antisocial behaviour which often occur as a result of binge drinking. I understand SAPOL, the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner and the Adelaide City Council currently have fairly broad powers which could address these issues. However, like many of my colleagues, I have to question why those powers are not being adequately used at the present time.

The information tabled by the Hon. Michelle Lensink relating to liquor licensing offences demonstrates a lack of adequate action. For instance, there have only been five offences relating to the sale and supply of liquor to intoxicated persons between 2008 and 2010. Those figures hardly seem to suggest any real effort on behalf of our enforcement agencies.

Finally, I am not convinced that the government's amendments regarding its extended trading authorisations adequately address the plethora of concerns that have been raised in relation to this issue. I look forward to the committee stage of debate of the bill.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (12:14): I rise to make a second reading contribution to this important bill. I am sure other members in this place appreciate that the area of liquor licensing is a complex one, or perhaps I should say most members recognise that the area of liquor licensing is a complex one because, like a few other members here, I have just sat through listening to a certain amount of waffle from the Hon. Rob Lucas, particularly his denigration of individual people in this chamber.

It is a fine balancing act between the needs and responsibilities of licensees, the safety and well being of the public, and creating vibrant entertainment precincts in South Australia. I believe all of us have had some contact from industry groups and constituents on the proposals before us.

As members no doubt recall, this government has already made some important changes to this state's liquor licensing legislation. On 18 November 2009, the Liquor Licensing (Producers, Responsible Service and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2009 (the amendment act) passed through both houses of parliament, and the Governor assented to the bill on 26 November 2009. The date for proclamation of the amendment act, with the exception of sections 5 and 7, was 3 May 2010.

The previous changes to the law provided more clarity around recognising an intoxicated person and also introduced a new provision that affords an authorised person under the act the power to remove a member of the public who they suspect either has or is about to purchase alcohol on behalf of someone who is intoxicated.

I understand that the guidance now offered to licensees through the legislation around intoxication has been an important improvement. The act now states that it is an offence to serve liquor to a person in circumstances in which the person's speech, balance, coordination or behaviour is noticeably impaired and it is reasonable to believe that the impairment is the result of the consumption of liquor.

The Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner makes information in the form of pamphlets and fact sheets available on its website to assist licensees and staff with determining whether or not a person is intoxicated for the purposes of the act. This information was developed with the help of Disability SA and also includes assistance in determining the difference between intoxication and impairment resulting from a disability or a medical condition.

Members may recall that sections 5 and 7 of the previous amendment act dealing with the code of practice and mandatory licence conditions have not yet been enacted. Those sections are key to the proposals that lay before us now. I will come back to the code of practice in more detail, because it is a really important part of the government's reform measures.

It has been a long journey for the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner. The current raft of proposals were first floated on 20 July 2009 when minister Gago released the discussion paper, 'A Safer night out'. The paper proposed changes to the act, essentially to strengthen measures that promote safety and responsible drinking in and around licensed premises, particularly in the state's entertainment precincts.

The amendment bill proposes a variety of reforms, and we have before us what is a challenging but valuable piece of draft legislation. I note that there have been differing views on the right way forward; we have heard quite a few thus far. A scan of the submissions received on the discussion paper—all of which are available on the OLGC website—reveals a range of opinions.

This is not an easy policy area by any means, but the government believes that these proposals strike a good balance, and I would like to talk about some of them in more detail. However, I am not going to dwell on the proposed break in trade for licensed venues; this really is a small part of the government's proposal, yet it has received a disproportionate amount of attention.

There are valuable neglected proposals before us which should be discussed in a fulsome way in this important place of review where we all sit. Members would also now be aware of the government's amendment, which makes trading between 4am and 7am possible in exceptional circumstances at the discretion of the commissioner. The government has needed to make this amendment, as it was very clear that this chamber was not going to support the proposal as originally outlined in the bill.

I am very interested in what the bill terms 'commissioner's management plans'. The bill proposes strengthening the powers of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner so that he can take action against venues where antisocial problems are occurring. I understand that a management plan allows the commission to put conditions on a group of venues in the same area or a group of venues of a particular class—for example, late-trading nightclubs. These conditions could range from imposing conditions on a licence, such as increasing security guards or cameras, to requesting that all venues cease selling shots after a certain hour.

I understand that management plans will not just be forced upon licensees; they will be developed in consultation with all the affected venues. They are designed to improve the safety of certain areas and to promote responsible service of alcohol (RSA), which are goals I am sure licensees would share with the commissioner. It is also important to note that it will be a requirement that management plans be reviewed to assess the effectiveness of the measures being taken. To me, management plans appear to be a collaborative effort to make our entertainment precincts as good as they can be.

It is proposed to give the commissioner other powers as well. For example, in the case of an imminent emergency or incident, the commissioner will be able to issue a short-term notice which may place conditions on a licence, suspend a licence or close a venue for up to 72 hours. I am told that it is likely that this new power would be exercised rarely, but that it is important for the commissioner to have the ability to act swiftly and responsibly to ensure the safety of the public.

The bill also proposes more powers for the police. As it is important for the commissioner to act if an incident is likely to occur, so too do the police need to be able to respond if an incident is taking place. Police will be given the ability to temporarily shut a venue or part of a venue in an emergency for up to 24 hours. The bill also toughens up on offenders who repeatedly breach the requirements of the act. Maximum penalties for subsequent serious breaches of certain licensing laws will be increased, and I understand that in some cases the penalties are being doubled. A significant penalty works as an excellent deterrent, in my view.

However, it is important that licensees do not just keep receiving and paying expiation penalties. For that reason, the government is proposing that for a second breach of certain licence conditions, a second expiation notice cannot be issued. Instead, disciplinary action before the court would be taken for subsequent breaches.

There is also a third measure designed to make sure serious action can be taken for the really big offences outlined in the act. That measure says that if a licensee has been convicted of a serious offence, such as drug trafficking or supplying liquor to an intoxicated person, the court is required to take disciplinary action against that person. I want to put on record my support for these proposals. It is obvious to me that the act needs to make it really clear that breaches will not be tolerated. I am sure we all agree that licensees need to be doing the right thing, and those that do not can be dealt with appropriately.

I turn now to the proposed codes of practice I mentioned earlier. I believe that perhaps the most significant element for addressing the responsible service and consumption of alcohol being proposed in the bill before us is the updated mandatory code. This is really important because the code is more than anything about protecting consumers and guiding venues to ensure they do the responsible thing. The draft code is available on the OLGC website. The code will require all staff involved in the service of alcohol to undertake RSA training. At the moment, I am told that only licensees and responsible persons are required to have been trained. I am sure that it will only be of benefit to venue staff to receive this training. It seems to me that confident, knowledgeable staff will be much better placed to deal with intoxicated or difficult patrons who do not know when to stop.

The code also introduces measures to restrict irresponsible drinking practices, and there are a variety of those happening now in our venues. It will no longer be permissible to offer drink promotions or deals which basically encourage people to drink a lot and quickly. This will include limiting the number of hours a happy hour can go for and banning 'two for one' and other such drink specials. It will also be a requirement that licensees provide free cool water and cheap soft drinks to encourage alternative drinking choices and responsible consumption. The code also seeks to address drink-spiking practices, which I understand the member opposite, the Hon. Tammy Franks, has a particular interest in and has raised.

It is not just pubs and clubs that will have to adhere to the new code. These rules will also apply to party buses, which I believe is important. I am not sure if members know much about party buses, but they can be a recipe for trouble if drinking is not undertaken responsibly. As I have said, I have acknowledged that this is not a bill that is going to please everyone, but I do feel that the proposals that the government has put forward and that we are discussing today are important and, ultimately, it is about helping to create a safer night out for all of us. I commend the bill to honourable members.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (12:26): I rise briefly to speak to the Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, and I will be brief. I would like to say at the outset that I am a little divided on which parts of this bill I would support and which parts I would not. Coming from a background in hospitality and being manager of a nightclub in Queensland, I have to say that really the image that is put out there by some of the things that have been said in here of nightclub proprietors or managers of nightclubs is perhaps a little misleading—that it is our goal to get people as drunk as possible as quickly as possible and that those people in those positions act irresponsibly most of the time.

The fact is that if you are managing a nightclub and are responsible for patrons in that nightclub and responsible for staff and their wellbeing, the last thing that you want is for patrons to be rowdy and drunk and abusive.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: They won't come back.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: That's right. You hire security to make sure that those issues can be dealt with swiftly. I do have a problem with the responsibility falling on people behind the bar to be determining when a person is drunk or too intoxicated to be served drinks. To think that a couple of hours of training on how to identify when somebody is drunk is going to make their job easier is quite untrue. I think I have used in here the example of when I was just starting in Queensland to work behind bars and tried to cut somebody's drinks off because he was too far gone and literally got dragged over the bar because I refused to serve him.

These are the sorts of things that happen when we are trying to shift the responsibility of law enforcement onto bar staff rather than making sure that law enforcement are there to do their job and that there are enough of them, and that licensees feel comfortable that, if they call police, the police will attend in a reasonable period of time and, in the meantime, security staff will deal with the patron who is causing the trouble.

I do not believe that a 4am close is the way to go. I do believe that it is going to herd people out onto the streets in great numbers. I think the number is that we would be pouring out about 5,000 onto the streets of Adelaide's CBD at 4am, and I do not believe that we can increase the number of taxis or improve public transport enough to be able to deal with that. I know that the Casino is quite concerned about that outpouring of people onto the streets at that time, and it is looking to recruit these people as patrons, a totally different clientele from those it is trying to attract.

In my own mind, I also couple this piece of legislation with the weapons legislation we are currently debating. I am sorry, but I see both of these fitting together as creating a situation where we are going to have more confrontations on the street between police and patrons than we think. We are increasing police powers but we are not increasing police numbers, and we are relying on bar staff to curb antisocial behaviour by their cutting of people's drinks and, no doubt, some are going to get rowdy.

We are also forgetting, too, what happened with the introduction of poker machines into hotels. A lot of the hotels in the suburbs used to provide entertainment for our young people (live music, live bands, discos or whatever) and, with the introduction of poker machines into those hotels, a lot of licensees of those venues saw it as being far more cost-effective to install poker machines and get extra revenue from them rather than spending money on entertainment and providing that sort of outlet, if you like, out in the suburbs, and I saw that when I first moved down here as well and was working in hotels.

We have created this situation of people flooding into the CBD. We have created the situation of young people going out now at midnight instead of, as the Hon. Rob Lucas said, in our time having to be home by midnight. We have created a culture where a lot of people rely on alcohol to be able to go out and have a good time. But we are also assuming that the majority of those people are irresponsible drinkers, and the majority of them, as the Hon. Rob Lucas said, are not. It is the minority of people who are causing a problem, and it is because of their actions that everybody else will be penalised.

Quite frankly, I see this bill as a way for this government to live up to its tough on law and order agenda through restricting activities and entertainment and businesses without having to spend extra money on extra policing. That is not the way to solve the problems that are stated as the reason for this bill. It is also not, I believe, good public policy.

We do have young people now who live a very different live from the life we lead. A lot of people are working that 4am to 7am shift; that will be money out of their pocket. What are we going to do? When most people in the entertainment industry live on 22 to 24 hours a week of employment and we are going to take three hours from a great many of those people because we want to shut down the CBD, what will they do with that shortfall in their pay packet?

A lot of those people (and I was one of them) are single mothers who rely on the three hours that will come out of their pay packet every week because the government believes it will curb violence in the streets. It is a huge ask for many people who live on the minimum amount of money and work in hospitality. Quite frankly, a lot of these people work in hospitality because it is either their kick-off as their working career, or they are older people who simply do not have the skills to get into any other kind of employment and they will take whatever they can get.

I know as a single mum that I used to work the late late shift because in Queensland they had penalty rates, and I used to work those shifts to be able to take home extra money. I know that is not the case here as it is a flat rate across the board, but it is still three hours a week out of somebody's pay packet that we will just take away because someone says that, after 4 o'clock, the streets are more violent. I cannot see that this will actually make that any better; in fact, I think it will make it worse.

I also have a problem with these management plans that the commissioner will have the power to negotiate as part of a person's liquor licence. I do not believe that it is government business. I do not believe that we have the right in this place to be interfering with how businesses operate. If businesses break the law, there are laws in place already for them to be penalised and prosecuted under those laws.

I would like to ask one question, given a comment the Hon. Carmel Zollo made in her speech. I would like to know how many licensees in the CBD have been issued with two or more expiation notices for a breach of their liquor licence since 2008. I am asking that genuinely because I do not know. I am not sure that businesses, managers or licensees want the reputation of being in constant breach of their liquor licence and paying expiation fees. I know that expiation fees are quite affordable to some of these businesses, but it goes with the reputation as well.

The image being projected about licensees and managers of licensed premises is quite one sided, as put across by the government. The majority of them, like the majority of people who go out on a Friday and Saturday night, behave themselves. Constantly in this place we are drawing up legislation for one-off situations or for the behaviour of the minority, rather than changing how we as a government and the police as a police force undertake their business. In saying that, I also look forward to the committee stage of this bill.

Very quickly I mention that the Hon. David Ridgway made the point about increased police presence being a great deterrent. That has been proved over and over again. I also say that the morale of the police force depends on how they conduct their business in the street. I have had a number of complaints to my office from young people who have been targeted by police for doing nothing more than walking up the street in a group of three—doing nothing, not even drunk—and being called over. One of them said that the police officer said to him, 'You look like you've been in trouble with the police before.' As a matter of fact he had never been.

If we are to talk about training bar staff to be able to deal with drunks and to cut off drinks, we should also be training some of our new police officers on a bit of diplomacy and how not to escalate situations. I had a meeting with Mr Bönig, President of the Law Society, who conducted a survey which showed that young people have zero to no respect for our police officers, and I think that is a sad, sad indictment on both our young people and our police force. You cannot demand respect: you actually earn respect. I have had a situation in here with a police officer who was rude, aggressive and young. It was not what I would have expected of a police officer doing business.

As I said, I have had a number of complaints about young people being targeted on the streets on a Friday. Already—before we pass the weapons bill, before we even consider the right to arbitrary search—there are some (and I agree that they would be the minority) police who go out there gung-ho, but this is both sides of the argument. It requires training on both sides of the fence and requires an honest review of not only how businesses are operating but also our police force and its resources. As I said, I look forward to the committee stage of this bill and taking into consideration all the other aspects of this bill we will be debating. I will be interested in the outcome.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley.

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