HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LIQUOR LICENSING (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 June 2011.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (17:52): I rise to make a couple of brief comments on the Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011. At the outset, can I congratulate my colleague the Hon. Michelle Lensink for articulating our position quite clearly. I am quite proud to support that particular position.

I would just like to make a couple of comments about the hotel industry and, in fact, the Casino. Members may be aware that in my maiden speech some nine years ago I unashamedly said that I would always try to look after the interests of the hotel industry. It is an industry that is often much maligned but is a massive employer in this state. I have always been of the opinion that the hotel industry is a great conduit for social intercourse. Certainly in the part of the world I come from, I cannot imagine growing up and not having the opportunity to catch up with friends in a great environment. Fortunately, hotels provide generally a very good environment. I make no apology for the fact that many years ago I did say that I would support the hotel industry.

I see this bill as another unbridled attack on the hotel industry, and I do wonder where this government is ultimately heading with regard to hotels. Does it want to get rid of the family publican? Does it want to get rid of individuals owning hotels? I constantly see more and more impediments being put in front of decent, honest, law-abiding business people, making it more difficult for them to run their business.

I see policing in an extraordinary way of licensing rules. I am sure that inadvertently at times I have broken licensing laws with regard to standing up and greeting a friend, colleague or, dare I say it, even a member of the government of the day at a hotel and breaking a licensing covenant where you are not supposed to stand on a footpath with a glass in your hand!

Now, those sorts of extraordinary penalties and the overzealous policing of those things make me wonder where we are all heading as a society. As I said at the start, hotels are a great place where social intercourse takes place. They are the very fabric of our society and I think they are incredibly important. I fear for the industry when we are constantly putting impediments in the way of publicans.

With four o'clock closing, I take my advice not only from the hotels association, which has been very kind to me with regards to briefings; I have certainly spoken to the Casino and had in-depth briefings from the government relations people from the Casino, who have all given me their time quite willingly. I also take my advice from my adult children and their many friends, who I come into contact with regularly.

The PRESIDENT: Your wife, Donna.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: You are right, Mr President. I certainly take a lot of advice from my wife, Donna, but not so much on this issue. At different times, I have done the Sunday morning run. Usually, my wife does it. As you know, Mr President, she, being a teetotaller, is always in good condition to go and perform those sorts of duties, but there have been times when I have been quite capable of taking my turn.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Very rare!

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The Hon. Mr Lucas says, 'Very rare!' Well, if he wants to start a slanging match, I am happy to get into that, but it is not really appropriate.

The PRESIDENT: I would refrain from responding to the Hon. Mr Lucas' interjections, because they are not doing you any good.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Thank you for your protection, Mr President; I appreciate it. I have certainly been to Hindley Street on a child collection run, and the reason that we have—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Do you want to rephrase that?

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Collecting my children, at that time of the morning. It is not something I really enjoy but it is the sort of thing you do as a father. Usually, I have had to do it because they have, in frustration, rung and said, 'Look, we can't get a taxi. It's impossible to get a cab at this time of night.' Could we come and help? Certainly, my wife and I have done that on many occasions.

On almost every occasion, they have had enough money to get a taxi. There would be no issue with them jumping in a cab and getting home, but the brutal reality is that, at three or four in the morning, to try to get a cab is incredibly difficult. Much less these days than in days gone by, I have also, at various times, been out in the early hours. I have been on the end of the queue outside the Casino trying to get a cab. It is incredibly difficult, and I have got to tell you that, in the middle of winter, it is not all that much fun. So, the thought that we are going to push people—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Do you ever go down to the Marble Bar to catch a cab?

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I have never been to the Marble Bar to catch a cab, but I have been to the Marble Bar, before and I think it is a terrific establishment. I have run into Robbie Kent, the owner, many times. He is a wonderful bloke, and I am sorry that they seem to have some difficulties at the moment. I have never had any issues being out late at night, other than that it can be a bit tricky trying to get home.

The thought that we are going to push people out onto the streets at 4am when, at the moment, they can leave at a voluntary time and still find it difficult to get transport, I think, is incredibly challenging. I have seen nothing from this government that has given me any confidence that they are going to address that particular problem. I am fearful because, if this legislation gets through, how the hell are we going to ensure the safety of young people?

I would love to think that all those young people were home in bed at 12 o'clock, 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock, but the reality is that they are not going to be, and we have to deal with that. We want a state that is progressive, we want a state that goes forward and we do not want to push our kids interstate and overseas because we have got this wowser mentality.

I would love to see a much greater police presence. I think that this situation can be resolved with a stronger, more visible police presence, in particular, in that Hindley Street area. I know that, from time to time, when we have a special task force or whatever to stamp out either, when violence or bad behaviour, when there is a greater police presence all of a sudden all the issues seem to be calmed down in quite a reasonable way. This government constantly boasts that we have more police now than we have ever had in this state; well, I think they need to be deployed in a way that keeps us all safe and keeps the entertainment precincts open.

I do not believe that South Australia in any way, shape or form should be closed for business. That is not the message we want to send out. When I come into Parliament House in the mornings, I often catch the bus and wander across from Grenfell Street, stopping at the intersection of King William and North Terrace. It distresses me, looking down to the left, when I see a banner at the Strathmore Hotel which asks 'Why us minister?'

I have adult children who work at the Casino—they have done for a couple of years now—and I know that quite often after work they go across to the Strathmore at three or four in the morning, because they are not really allowed to socialise in the Casino. They go across to the Strathmore, and in a good, safe environment they can have a couple of knock-off drinks before they head home with their friends. I have been to the Strathmore Hotel a number of times; it is a good—

The PRESIDENT: I have to remind the honourable member that it is 6 o'clock closing.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Mr President, I have just a bit more, so I seek leave to conclude.

Leave granted.


[Sitting suspended from 18:01 to 19:47]


The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I would like to continue, and I will not keep the house for a lengthy period, as is my normal modus operandi. At the break I was talking about the Strathmore Hotel and the extraordinary lengths that the Basheers go to in looking after those people who work at the Casino. I remind honourable members that there are more than 1,000 people employed by the Adelaide Casino, and at different times they avail themselves of the opportunity to pop across to the Strathmore.

I thank the Hon. Tammy Franks, who reminded me during the break that I said that staff at the Casino could not socialise within the Casino, which is not quite correct. The Casino operates in a very strict fashion and, whilst staff can, I believe, have a drink, they have to be very careful about which areas they frequent. They certainly are not allowed to gamble. It is just another range in which the Casino operates in a very strict fashion. They are very careful about trying to ensure that they monitor problem gambling and that sort of stuff.

The staff like to avail themselves of the opportunity for what they call a knock-off drink, and the Basheers at the Strathmore do a great job in making sure that they can do that in a safe and friendly environment. I know that the Casino staff appreciate the lengths that the people at the Strathmore go to. It does sadden me a bit to see a hardworking family wondering why a government is imposing restrictions on them and trying to almost make them feel like criminals.

I am very pleased that the government has finally decided to head down a path where I have always believed that people should take some responsibility for their own actions. I complained earlier about how difficult it would be to run a family hotel. This business about how somebody behind a bar has to go to great lengths to ascertain the level of intoxication of a patron: I understand we have to be responsible, but ultimately there has to be some responsibility put back on the patron.

This measure of the on-the-spot fines is so that you are not going to take up a lot of police time, but I am looking forward to seeing some of these idiots who spoil it for the vast majority waking up with a nasty fine in their top pocket. I think this is a measure that is long overdue and, with its implementation, I am hoping that some of the angst around people being out, especially in Hindley Street, late at night will disappear.

We have criminal intelligence provisions which allow licensees of hotels to be monitored in the same way as organised crime. Licensees must already pass rigorous character checks in order to obtain their licence in the first place. I think the police resources could be much better used. Constantly trying to find the most minor of faults really does disturb me and, quite frankly, I am hoping that this parliament has had enough of that and I am hoping they will not support these particular measures.

Sir, I have touched on a number of areas that are close to my heart, and I know that you have had the occasional shandy on a hot day in a licensed establishment. I know you share many of my concerns. I am hoping that this bill dies the death that it should. I am hoping that—

The PRESIDENT: I don't think I would put lemonade in it. It'd be full strength.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Sorry for maligning you, Mr President. It would certainly be full strength beer. We know that the hotel industry provides the social intercourse that our state needs. It is a bonding place. We need to support publicans and we really have to get away from this nanny state attitude. We have to make people take responsibility for their own actions. I am very keen to make sure that this bill does no damage whatsoever to the people I respect.

In closing, there was an amendment moved by the Hon. Tammy Franks with regard to trying to ensure that the Casino closed, too. I know that the Hon. Tammy Franks has no axe to grind with the Casino. To me, it is an incredibly important part of the attractions of this state, and it sends out a message to other people in Australia that we are open for business.

I applaud the initiatives of the Casino with regard to entertainment. You can go and have a drink there late at night, even though they are sometimes overzealous in the way they police patrons who are trying to pop in there after they have been somewhere else. I guess it is absolutely for the better, but I know myself that I have popped in a couple of times and had to make sure I put on a very sensible face to get past the scrutiny of the security people. I think they do a terrific job in that regard and I think they do a terrific job providing a safe environment for people to go late at night to have a quiet drink.

I can remember that a couple of times when we have sat here very late in the evening—I think we have had nearly a 20-hour day—I think a couple of us went and had a couple of beers late at night at the Casino in a pretty good, safe environment. I applaud what they do. I do not support imposing any further restrictions on the Casino. I do not support imposing any further restrictions on the hotel industry, and I hope that this bill heads in the direction that I have indicated.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Vincent. We will find out how late you go out in the morning.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (19:54): Don't make me say it. My mum reads the Hansard and I might get grounded. One day the 'young' jokes will stop, but until then—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: When I am older. Can I be a big girl and do my job please? Thank you. I rise today to speak on this bill for many reasons, not least of which being the fact that it is something which, as many members in this chamber have already pointed out, concerns many young people. Though I would not dare to state that I speak for all young people, I think we have already established that I happen to be one of them.

This is a bill which will directly affect my friends, both those who work in the hospitality industry and those who like to go out and dance until the early hours of the morning in clubs. It will even affect my friends who might just like to have a drink at 4.30am after they finish playing with their band or acting in a play, for instance, or doing some other activity which is not offensively debauched but happens to take place in the early hours of the morning. Not all young people want to get outrageously drunk until 5am, stagger down the street and wake up in the gutter—although there can be little denying that this does occasionally happen. Most young people—and hey, even some of you older people—like to socialise, they like to meet new people, and they like to share experiences with others.

At its most basic, this is where the night-life in Adelaide comes from. A venue is not necessarily about alcohol: it is about the richness of the overall setting. If you look at a place like the Fringe Club, for example, which pops up only when that festival is on, you can see an example of such an experience. In a place like the Fringe Club you can go and mix with a wonderful crowd of people; many local, many from interstate, many from overseas, and many who have some kind of amazing talent or interest which is fascinating to hear about. Mix that kind of conversation with a couple of decent beers and the occasional possum visiting from the Parklands and you get an experience I would be happy to have well into the early hours of the morning.

This legislation circumvents that understanding of clubs and bars. It instead relegates them to being simple alcohol factories, which pump out drunk young people who then create problems for our police department. The concept of this legislation is very narrow, as it assumes that if you close the alcohol factories you will solve the violence problems. I do not believe this to be true. Instead of this kind of simplistic thinking, what we need from our government is more lateral solutions to the alcohol and violence problem. We need the government to recognise the need for social interaction and provide a legislative framework which allows young people to have a good time in a safe way.

One of my staff members helps run an art gallery which is located in a lane just off Hindley Street. The art gallery only serves alcohol about once a month, at openings, and only for about three hours at a time. As a space which supports emerging artists, most of the crowd is young people, but none of these young people are there to get drunk. They are there to support a friend or to absorb some culture—they just happen to do it with a glass of wine in their hand. Despite the entirely innocuous nature of this art gallery and its activities, it has had a lot of trouble getting a permanent liquor licence and is instead forced to apply for a series of temporary licences, a process which wastes the time of the gallery staff and the liquor licensing department.

Imagine if our government could recognise the social value and safety value of places like this gallery in this legislation. Imagine if our government had the willpower to encourage enterprises like this, which are safe and entertaining, instead of just handing down a block ban on a whole range of places. Imagine if the government wanted to consider encouraging alternatives for young people to have a safe night out, instead of just shutting them out of establishments for a few hours.

If that were the case, then I could say that we have a government which truly cares for its young people and which is putting effort into creating a safe but vibrant lifestyle for them. Unfortunately, this is evidently not the case. I appreciate the effort the Hon. Gail Gago has put into her amendments, which give a little leeway for some establishments to be open between the hours of 4am and 7am. This, at least, will hopefully mean that there are a few places young people can go safely to socialise in these hours, but I do not appreciate the basis of this legislation.

I do not appreciate the assumptions it makes about young people and I do not believe that it will make our streets safer. There are other ways, and I hope that the government will consider other approaches in the future. I will support the second reading of this bill, because it will give us the opportunity to explore further how this issue is being addressed, but my support is likely to be very temporary.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (19:59): I understand there are no further second reading contributions. There were a number of questions posed through the second reading contributions. I would like to do two things: first, to thank those members for their second reading contributions; and then, secondly, to take this opportunity to answer some of the questions that have been raised.

As all members appreciate, the issue which this bill seeks to tackle in dealing with alcohol-related crime and violence in and around licensed premises is, obviously, a very complex one. The community expects the government to protect citizens and minimise alcohol-related harm. The current functioning of the Adelaide CBD in the early hours of the morning contributes to financial costs incurred by police and other emergency services and, obviously, a loss of amenity to the public.

In his comments on the bill, the Hon. Rob Lucas asked what evidence is available from police statistics in relation to the percentage of alcohol-related incidents that relate to Hindley Street and the entertainment precincts of Adelaide. In a research paper commissioned by South Australia Police, entitled Alcohol and Crime July 2010, it was reported that in the Adelaide CBD in 2008-09 a significantly larger proportion of apprehension reports for offences against a person were alcohol-related compared with the rest of the state: 62 per cent versus 41 per cent.

The picture is similar for offences against property, where 50 per cent were alcohol-related in the CBD, compared with 32 per cent for the rest of the state. Likewise, for offences against public order, 61 per cent were alcohol-related in the CBD, compared with 45 per cent statewide. Furthermore, for the same period, police apprehension reports documenting a range of offences committed in Hindley Street reflected a higher degree of alcohol involvement compared with the whole of the CBD and, likewise, the rest of the state.

I direct the Hon. Rob Lucas to this report to obtain further information and statistics. I also point honourable members to the results of the 2008 Perceptions of Safety survey conducted by the Adelaide City Council of Adelaide residents, city workers and students. The survey found that the presence of drunk people was the main reason respondents felt unsafe at night. I am advised that the area in which the respondents felt most unsafe was, in fact, Hindley Street.

I turn now to address some of the other specific issues raised by honourable members in their second reading contributions. Much of the attention of their contributions focused on the proposal to enforce a mandatory break in trade for venues covered by Hotel, Club Entertainment Venues and Special Circumstances licences. This focus in attention is particularly interesting considering that while many liquor licences across the state have authorisations to extend their trade beyond standard hours—for example, after midnight—the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner is aware of only six such venues in the Hindley Street area, including West Terrace, that actually do trade for some of that time (and that is for some of the time) between 4am and 7am—that is, six currently trade some of the time between 4am and 7am.

This three-hour mandatory closure is not going to result in the sky falling down and the loss of significant amenity. The OLGC is also aware of approximately 40 venues statewide that operate somewhere between 4am and 7am. This means that, from a total of almost 6,000 licensed premises throughout the state, less than 1 per cent are likely to be actually affected in some way by the proposed mandatory three-hour break in trade. I am the first to admit that there is no single solution to this serious issue in our community. There is no silver bullet, if you will.

The proposed amendments to the act bring together a suite of measures aimed at reducing alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. However, one of the fundamental issues is the extended hours of alcohol availability. It is proposed that a mandatory break in trade will be an effective way of dealing with alcohol-related crime and assist in the transition between night and day time. Licensed premises patrons will have an opportunity to disperse during this period and for the physical environment to be cleaned and restored.

Members, including the Hon. David Ridgway and the Hon. Tammy Franks, have pointed out that a good number of these venues likely to be affected are well-run establishments that recognise and implement sound initiatives aimed at encouraging responsible service of alcohol, and they ask: why should these establishments be unfairly affected by this proposal; why not just penalise licensees who are doing the wrong thing?

In order to reduce the harms associated with liquor consumption, through restricting the overall availability of liquor, the government has decided that a blanket approach, as part of the approach, is likely to be the most effective. Only restricting trade in some high-risk or problem venues would be likely to lead to displacement issues and could create a scenario where unrestricted or unaffected venues begin to have more compliance and enforcement issues and more incidents of antisocial and violent behaviour, as the problem simply moves around to the different venues.

The Hons Rob Lucas, Michelle Lensink and Ann Bressington have raised concerns about the impact that mandatory break in trade may have on hospitality workers. Being a shift worker myself in a former career, I certainly have a great deal of sympathy for shift workers. It is recognised that this proposal may impact on the livelihood of some South Australian families who rely on income received from employment in the liquor industry between the hours of 4 and 7am. However, I suggest that any negative impact of this proposal is likely to be balanced, at least in some way, by the positive impact that the break in trading hours will have on the wellbeing of the community as a whole.

Also, in their respective comments on the bill, the Hons Rob Lucas and Michelle Lensink raised concerns about the impact that the proposed closure will have on workers, particularly in relation to their transport home after work. I respond to this first by confirming to members that an after-midnight bus service operates on Saturday night and Sunday mornings. Despite the opinion expressed by the Hon. Tammy Franks, whose quote was that they are 'sometimes confusing to young people', I suggest that they provide a safe and accessible transport option for those leaving the city on the weekend late at night or in the early hours of, particularly, Sunday mornings

These buses use the same route numbers as regular daytime services with an N before the number. All buses travel along the regular bus route, with some detouring to major destinations such as Glenelg and the Marion Shopping Centre. After-midnight services operate in both directions on an hourly basis, making it safe and easy for people to get around after midnight.

Depending on the service and the direction—i.e. either to or from the city—the last service into the city can be between 3am and 4am, while the last service out of the city could be between 4am and 4.50am. These services then finish and normal Sunday services begin. I am advised by the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure that some of the best patronised services include buses going to Gawler, Noarlunga, Golden Grove, West Lakes and Mount Barker.

The government acknowledges the importance of establishing a sound dispersal strategy to adequately support the proposals outlined in the review. As members are aware, the government has provided additional funding of $80,000 towards the establishment of new managed taxi ranks and is currently undertaking work on the details of where the locations might actually be.

Priority locations are being identified for the new ranks, and part of this work is also focused on exploring sites for ranks close to suburban public transport interchanges, to ensure that patrons who choose to get home late at night by bus, tram or train could then easily and safely access a taxi for that second leg of their journey, helping to modify or reduce the costs of that service. The government recognises that this aspect is an important part of an effective dispersal plan, so as to effectively cater for persons who, for whatever reason, including cost, choose not to catch taxis.

Another issue raised by a number of members in their speeches is the idea that the mandatory break in trade will result in a mass exodus of patrons leaving venues at the same time. The Hon. Tammy Franks expressed concerns that, and I quote, 'there is no way that public transport options will be able to deal with the curfew measure in this bill'. I challenge this assertion on two bases.

The first is, as I have already explained to members, that the government is undertaking work to establish additional managed taxi ranks, both in the CBD and at suburban transport interchanges, to assist patrons who choose to get home late at night via other public transport options to then easily and safely access a taxi for the rest of their journey home. Another factor that should not be ignored is the likely shift in patron behaviour if licensed premises are required to cease serving liquor at 4am. It is anticipated that there will be a shift in the behaviour of patrons; they will be likely to start their night out earlier, shifting the peak period to an earlier time and thus resulting in a similar, but earlier, staggered dispersal, as is currently the case.

It is interesting that the advice from the Taxi Council of SA is that currently the peak period for taxis is, in fact, from 1am to 3am, with the absolute peak at 3am, slowly tapering off from 3.30am, and with a very significant drop-off in business by 5am. This suggests that even now a good number of people have already called it a night and exited the city prior to the proposed 4am closure. It shows that the peak demand or flow of dispersal that might be created by the 4am closure has already occurred prior to the proposed closure time.

Police have also indicated that they will provide extra resources to assist with people leaving our entertainment precincts. Police will also be assisted by the proposal to add a provision to the bill that creates a new offence of engaging in an offensive or disorderly manner in a licensed premises or in the vicinity of a licensed premises. The bill makes it an offence for a person to engage in such a way, making them liable for a $1,250 fine.

The amendment allows for such an offence to be expiable, and subject to a fee of $160. The aim of this proposal is to give police a practical response to loutish behaviour, in particular by persons leaving licensed premises or moving between licensed premises, without the expense of a prosecution where that may not be necessary.

I note support for this proposal by several members who spoke to the bill, and I am pleased that we have been able to include it in our suite of proposals. Similar provisions exist in other states, including Victoria, where an infringement notice may be issued if a person is found to be drunk and disorderly in a public place. Members have also summarised that simply an increased visible police presence would be an equally, if not more, effective way of managing antisocial behaviour in our entertainment precincts, as opposed to the amendment currently contained within the bill.

The government agrees that practical police support for the proposal currently before the chamber is important, and I am advised that the Commissioner of Police has indicated he is looking to implement operations to support and use the new legislation to improve safety in high profile precincts involving licensed premises.

I am also advised that the Commissioner of Police has given a commitment to increase the number of police in Hindley Street and the Adelaide CBD area from the additional police being recruited. Further, I understand that consideration is being given to increasing policing in and around our public transport hubs, which this government committed to in the last election. Nevertheless, the government maintains that there is no one solution to these complex social issues, which is why it is proposing a raft of measures to address the many problems associated with the consumption of alcohol and to try to prevent the existence of trouble spots such as those in Hindley Street.

In her second reading contribution the Hon. Michelle Lensink sought leave to table information received relating to the number of prosecutions of liquor licensees since January 2008. She went on to comment on those figures, saying that they highlighted a weakness in what was being proposed in the bill and that if current breaches of the act were better enforced additional measures, as proposed, would not be required.

Again, I challenge that assertion. The figures tabled by the Hon. Michelle Lensink reflect statistics on how many prosecutions of licensees were heard by the Magistrates Court; this is but one avenue, and a less common avenue, that may be pursued when licensees breach their licence conditions or provisions in the act. The most common course of action taken when a licensee breaches the act, or a condition of their licence, is to pursue disciplinary action. This can range from formal undertakings by licensees that are accepted by the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner to the issuing of reprimands, fines and disqualifications imposed by the Licensing Court.

The act allows for disciplinary action to be initiated by the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner or the Commissioner of Police, with all matters other than undertakings determined by the licensing court. Generally, where an offence under the act is alleged, the matter is dealt with by the Commissioner of the Licensing Court, rather than being pursued by the Magistrates Court, as being specialist decision-makers in the regulation of licensed premises whereby consistency in decision-making is optimised.

Several members, in particular the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Michelle Lensink, also raised the lack of prosecutions related to inappropriate service to intoxicated persons. The amendments introduced in May 2010 were developed in consultation with licence holders and sought to clarify the meaning of intoxication. In doing this, a set of intoxication guidelines were developed and were provided to licensees and bar staff to assist them in recognising the signs of intoxication.

It is important to note that, in addition to refusing service of alcohol to intoxicated persons, licensees may also bar a person from their premises if the person is exhibiting drunken behaviour or behaving in an offensive or disorderly manner, or if the licensee is satisfied that the welfare of a person seriously at risk as a result of the consumption of alcohol.

The OLGC record showed that over 600 barring orders have been issued by licensees since 3 May 2010 for behaviour such as drunken behaviour and disorderly behaviour. Other barring orders relate to behaviour such as assault, property damage and theft, all of which could be associated with an intoxicated offender. I have only a few more things that I would like to take this opportunity to refer to before concluding my remarks.

These figures indicate that licensees are taking their responsibilities seriously to identify intoxicated persons and seek to have them removed or barred from their premises if they are causing issues. I now turn my attention to a question raised by the Hon. Tammy Franks, who requested information on the number of people apprehended by the Public Intoxication Act. I have been provided with information covering the period from 1 January 2005 until 31 March 2011.

Very briefly, before concluding, SAPOL advises that almost 17,000 persons were apprehended. Many were discharged into their own care once they had sobered up and others were discharged at sobering up centres, home or in the custody of friends, and so on. I am advised that 175 were formally arrested. As public intoxication is not an offence, it is my understanding these persons would most likely have been arrested in relation to another matter such as an existing warrant or another substantive offence.

I turn now, and finally, to the comments made by several honourable members about the Casino exemption to the mandatory break in trade. I particularly address the Hon. Rob Lucas's question as to whether the Casino must apply for a special trading authorisation under proposed section 44A.

Casinos in all other Australian capital cities have 24-hour trade. Enforcing a mandatory closure at the Casino would place South Australia at a disadvantage in comparison to other states. The Casino has always been understood to be an anomaly in local licensing terms. In addition to being covered by the LLA, it is also covered by its own unique act.

The provision contained in the bill in amendment No. 6 does not require the Casino, except for any other area in the Casino described in regulations, to obtain a special trading authorisation to trade between the hours of 4am and 7am. This, therefore, means that any area in the Casino that is not prescribed in the regulation can remain open without requiring an exception under proposed section 44A.

As the Hon. Rob Lucas would know, any act can be amended if both houses of parliament so choose. It is important to note, however, that it is intended that areas 1 and 2 of the Casino, known as the North restaurant, will be prescribed in the regulations and will therefore be subject to the same requirement as other venues to seek an extended trading authorisation should it want to open this part of the premises between 4am and 7am.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the issue of alcohol-related crime, violence and antisocial behaviour around licensed premises is a complex one. I am the first to acknowledge that alcohol-related problems in our community are entrenched within a complex set of social and cultural issues, and obviously there is no quick fix to improve this serious problem. Nevertheless, I am confident that the current package of reforms comprise a raft of measures that can positively contribute to challenging and, ultimately, changing for the better our community's attitude towards the responsible consumption of alcohol.

I remind honourable members, if they think that the mandatory three-hour break in trade would result in our being considered a nanny state, that New York City has a four-hour mandatory closure, and I know that it is world-renowned for its club venues and its nightlife, so I think that is a somewhat a long bow. If I have failed to answer any of the questions asked during second reading, I am happy to address those during the committee stage and I look forward to the committee stage being dealt with expeditiously.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

That progress be reported.

The committee divided on the motion:

AYES (14)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A.
Dawkins, J.S.L. Franks, T.A. Hood, D.G.E.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. (teller) Lucas, R.I.
Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W. Stephens, T.J.
Vincent, K.L. Wade, S.G.
NOES (6)
Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P.
Hunter, I.K. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

Majority of 8 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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