HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LIQUOR LICENSING (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 October 2013.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:07): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to support the second reading of the legislation. In so doing I place on the record my concern at the callous disregard for the truth that the Attorney-General and minister responsible for this particular legislation seems to have in terms of his both public and private comments.

I was intrigued during the lunch break today to be contacted by a journalist and asked why was I, in the Legislative Council, publicly disagreeing with the position of Steven Marshall in my contribution on the bill. I said to the journalist, 'What bill are you talking about? We have had electoral and the gas trading exchanges.' She said, 'No, no, it's the liquor licensing bill.' I said, 'Well, you should go back to your Labor Party sources and say that the Legislative Council hasn't debated the liquor licensing legislation; I haven't spoken on the liquor licensing legislation.'

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: And 'you're a liar'.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, no, the journalist is not a liar, but her source doesn't tell the truth. Then, lo and behold, someone else contacted me and said, 'Have you seen John Rau's Twitter feed?' So, I went to have a look at John Rau's Twitter feed, which was from this morning.

The Hon. M. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am told his cat makes more sense than he does and tells the truth more often, but I am not referring to John Rau's cat's Twitter feed on this particular occasion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! I think you should return to the text.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am returning to the text. John Rau's Twitter feed this morning says:

Libs in the Upper House repudiating their leader's commitment to support the Late Night Code. Rob Lucas now de-facto leader of the Party.

There is John Rau telling all and sundry—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Maher will get his opportunity shortly.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —and indicating that I was in the upper house this morning repudiating my leader's commitment to support the late night code as part of this and I am now the de facto leader. Just to follow it up, John Rau's Twitter feed then says—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. John Rau.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, no, it just says 'John Rau' here. I am reading straight off his Twitter feed. He does not describe himself as honourable. 'John Rau MP@JohnRauMP. Biggest challenge of Marshall's short time as leader—imposing discipline on maverick Lucas.' This is before I had even spoken on the legislation. I had not given an interview on the issue in the last however long it has been—certainly not in the last few days. There is the Deputy Premier, the minister in charge of the legislation, out there telling people that Lucas is going rogue in the upper house, and he is repudiating Steven Marshall's position in relation to the late night code and the liquor licensing legislation. Sadly, if it was not a common occurrence I would call on the Deputy Premier to apologise for his untruthful statements, but the practice is there have been so many of them over a period of time.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Do you think he was also leaking? He was probably leaking against Weatherill yesterday.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I think that is probably for another debate.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The honourable member should ignore the interjections.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Exactly. I think they are still trying to find the leak in either Mr Rau's office or Mr Snelling's office.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The honourable member should ignore the Government Whip as well.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I can only suggest to Mr Rau that on occasions if he would like to either be accurate or truthful in his statements he might actually get one of his staff—if all his staff are still employed in his office—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Isn't he is one short?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, I am not sure if he is one short, but I am sure he has plenty. If he could get one of his staff—if they are all still employed—to actually check the Hansard record before he makes statements in relation to issues, particularly when he overcooks the meal a little by saying, 'This is the biggest challenge of Marshall's short time as leader.'

Let us address the issues and put on the record the Liberal Party's position on this. Let us be clear what Liberal leader Steven Marshall's position is on this particular legislation, not the claimed statements by the Deputy Premier on this issue. On 1 October on FIVEaa, Mr Marshall was interviewed by Mr Leon Byner, and I quote from the transcript:

…we've had real concerns about the Late Night Trading Code ever since the Government put it up for renewal…this has been out for consultation since last October. Look, there's got to be a balance; on the one hand you want to have people safe while they're out but you don't want to increase costs on licensees unnecessarily and you certainly don't want to restrict people's ability to have fun.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Sounds like Rob Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, this is Steven Marshall:

…we agree with you, Leon, the better approach is always to target the offending behaviour rather than put a restriction on everybody. Now look, we've made a decision in the Liberal Party room not to frustrate this attempt by the Government to deal with, you know, alcohol abuse and alcohol related violence but we do still have concerns.

Leon Byner then says:

…obviously everybody worries about this; I just sourced some information to get some fact and I've actually broadcast the information…you're saying you agree with what they're saying but you won't do anything.

Mr Marshall says:

Well, what we've said is that we will review the licence classifications if we're elected to Government next year as part of an overarching review. We're not going to frustrate the Government's push at this stage. Let's put it in place—it's already begun—let's put it in place and review it but we think that there needs to be a review. Plenty of people have told us that these lockouts that have occurred in other places haven't delivered the results that the Government are claiming that they have.

Further on, in response to further questions from Mr Byner, Mr Marshall says:

...the simple fact of the matter is we are as concerned about alcohol related violence as the Government is. The Government with their resources have decided this is the best way to go; they've been out for consultation for a year. Let's put it in place, let's see what results that it yields and then let's review it. But my natural inclination is not to punish everybody; my natural inclination, the inclination of the Liberal Party is to address the poor behaviour of certain individuals and certain licences, and we haven't seen a lot of action from the Commissioner targeting specific venues, that's been a real issue and something that we'd like to investigate.

Again from FIVEaa, but this time it is an extended interview with Ali Rodda. I think the transcript was done on 8 October, but I suspect that it is an interview from 7 October, the night before. Liberal leader Steven Marshall says:

We've had real concerns about the Government's Late Night Code for an extended period of time, they've watered it down significantly.

Then further on, he says:

We've said that if we're elected we'll review it. We want to make sure that it is sensible...generally speaking the Liberal Party doesn't like to put these blanket restrictions on everybody that goes out, we prefer to target any action against individuals that are doing the wrong thing, it gets back to our general philosophy as a party...that hasn't been the case at the moment, everybody's going to have the same restrictions. We said if we're elected we'll review that but let's see what it's like for the next 12 months.

Then, finally, further on, he says:

...well...we would much prefer this focused on the individuals that are doing the wrong thing, not hitting everybody that's doing—I mean, imagine if they got their first code through, we would have been the laughing stock...imagine if...an international high roller had come to...one of our major venues, maybe the Intercontinental and ordered a double spirit and the person said 'oh sorry, I can't serve you a double spirit and...here's your single spirit' and it's in a plastic cup. I mean, we would have looked like a laughing stock...the revised code is much better than was originally proposed.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: So, you support it—you're supporting the code?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The position of the Liberal leader is the position that all members of the Liberal Party will be supporting, and I rise on behalf of the Liberal leader to indicate our support for the Liberal leader's position, contrary to the untruthful statements made by the Deputy Premier in relation to these issues. Let's look closely at what Liberal leader Steven Marshall has been saying in relation to the late night—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Which version?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, I've just read two versions of it there for you—exactly the same.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Well, do you support it? Do you support exactly what he said?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I support exactly what Liberal leader Steven Marshall has said. What the Liberal leader has said is that we have had real concerns about this government's late night code. That is what he said, quite clearly—and I agree with him 100 per cent where he says, 'We have real concerns about the government's late night code.' He then goes on to say:

...generally speaking, the Liberal Party doesn't like to put these blanket restrictions on everybody...we prefer to target any action against individuals that are doing the wrong thing, it gets back to our general philosophy as a party.

That is the difference between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. The Labor Party's approach has been to put blanket restrictions on everybody. The Liberal leader Steven Marshall is saying that that is not the Liberal Party way; that is not the Liberal Party philosophy. Our preference would be that we take action against those who breach the law.

Instead of having blanket restrictions on every late night venue—and I have spoken in this house often about this government, led by people like former attorney Atkinson, current Attorney Rau, Premier Weatherill and the former leader in this place, Mr Finnigan, all having this wowsers' view and being opposed to young people enjoying themselves in the entertainment precinct of Adelaide. The position is that, whilst there have been some changes in this revised code, we know, if re-elected, the direction in which this government would head.

They have made their intention clear; they have just been forced to wind some elements of this back in the revised code. Commissioner Paul White has made his intentions clear at a number of meetings with stakeholders in the CBD. Lawrie Bias in a number of interviews on late night radio has quoted statements made by Mr White at recent meetings with stakeholders evidently. The intention of the Labor government is clear, if re-elected, if given their head, if allowed to do what they want to do, they want to crack down on everybody.

Young people right across the board realise that, starting originally with the former premier Mr Rann, who wanted to close down all the pubs and clubs at 2am in the morning, this has been an evolving policy and the government has been quite intent on implementing it. They have part of it in this revised code but, if re-elected, if given their head, we know the direction they would want to go.

The Liberal leader Steven Marshall is quite outspoken. He makes it quite clear what his view is and what the Liberal Party's philosophy is. What we should do, rather than penalising everybody—that is, all venues and all young people in the main, but all people who are wanting to enjoy nightclubs in the early hours of the morning—is to target those who commit the offences. In relation to the venues, we should impose through a penalty regime that, if they are the ones who are breaching the licensing provisions, penalise them to a significant degree in the end. Impose the sanctions in terms of operating hours on the ones who continue to break the law.

Bring down the penalties on those who break the law, from both a licensing viewpoint and, equally, in the main young people's viewpoints, but whoever the punters are in the Adelaide CBD in the early hours of mainly Saturday and Sunday mornings. Hit those who misbehave or break the law in a public place with significantly increased penalties. I will address some further comments about that in a moment.

That is the general position that Steven Marshall, the Liberal leader, has put down on any number of occasions on behalf of the Liberal Party. From his viewpoint, that is a more sensible way to go. He has said, 'This government has already implemented its code. It is two or three weeks into the code already. It has been implemented because it has, in essence, been introduced by a regulation-making power.'

Even if it were to be disallowed, as a code, the government—as it has done with other regulations—could the next day reinstitute that code or indeed any other code that it wanted to apply between now and the election. Of course, we only have another 11 sitting days, so the government could reintroduce the code in the fourth week of November and that would operate all the way through until after the election anyway—so, for a five-month period—without parliament having any opportunity to disallow it if the parliament so chose.

The reality is that the government knows that on this occasion it has parliament over a barrel in relation to the late night code. It can ensure that this code or any other version of the code can operate because they are going to prorogue this parliament in the early weeks of December and there will be no opportunity for parliament to express a view any differently during that period.

Liberal leader Steven Marshall has made it clear that this is in. There will be a review if he is elected in March 2014. There will be a review of the liquor licensing provisions, but in particular obviously of the late night code—is someone cracking a coldie out the back there?

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: They won't be able to do that after 3am anywhere. The Liberal leader, Steven Marshall, has indicated that, if elected, there will certainly be a review. If certain amendments from, I think, the Hon. Mr Darley—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: And the Hon. Ann Bressington.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —and the Hon. Ann Bressington are passed, then there will be a review even if a Labor government—heaven forbid!—happened to be re-elected in March 2014. Whatever happens, it is likely that there will be a review of the operation of the legislation. Liberal leader Steven Marshall's position—which I strongly support—about bringing the boom down on individuals being the way to go just makes so much sense.

I have had, over the years, interminable arguments with former attorney Mr Atkinson on this issue because he and former premier Rann were the original wowsers who led the charge on this. What they do not realise is that young people these days live different lives to the lives we led when we were their age.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: They do not actually go out until late on a Saturday night or a Friday night and their entertainment hours are from 11 o'clock through to 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock. Those who have had teenage children or young adult children living in their households these days will know that you do not see much of them on a Sunday morning because they do not get home until breakfast time. They sleep for the bulk of the morning and emerge sometime in the early afternoon.

It is not a life, Hon. Mr Brokenshire, suited to dairy farmers unless you do the milking as soon as you come back from the club and then go to bed. I hear on talkback radio when Mr Atkinson says, 'This is an outrage—young people out in the early hours of the morning,' and you hear the older callers agreeing with Mr Atkinson and going, 'Tut-tut-tut.'

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Atkinson.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Is he honourable?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Yes, he is. He was a minister for a number of years and he is now the Speaker.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Has he accepted it? Well, let me call him the member for Croydon, then. I would not like to refer to him as honourable, so, the member for Croydon.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The member for Croydon, with his interminable arguments where he tut-tuts about young people in the early hours of the morning actually enjoying themselves, gets a number of older callers, in particular, who tut-tut at the same time and cannot bring themselves to comprehend why anyone needs to be out at 4am or 5am enjoying themselves. The reality is that is the way of life for many young people these days. I am disappointed that the Hon. Mr Maher and the Hon. Mr Kandelaars, chortling on the backbench, cannot understand.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Was Maher one of those nerdy blokes who never went out, do you reckon?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: One of those nerdy blokes, do you reckon?

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! Other members will get an opportunity to speak if they wish. The Hon. Mr Lucas has the call.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The reality—

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I just said that I support—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Maher is out of order.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The problem we have, as I said, with the Hon. Mr Maher and the Hon. Mr Kandelaars in their support for the Deputy Premier and the others is that they just do not understand that young people like to go out in the early hours of Saturday morning and Sunday morning, in particular, and whether it is 12 o'clock or 4am or 5am or 6am is no different to them in terms of their entertainment. Large numbers of people are out there enjoying themselves. That is when they get to meet new people. That is when they socialise. That is their release after they have worked through the working week. The other point that the member for Croydon and the Hon. Mr Maher and the Hon. Mr Kandelaars—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S. L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —cannot understand is that these days the problems that are being attributed to licensees in many respects cannot be impacted by the licensees of particular venues because a lot of people, in particular young women, preload before they go out because alcoholic drinks at clubs are so expensive. They get their bottles of vodka and their mixers, and whatever else it might happen to be, with their friends and they drink their alcohol before they head out at 11 o'clock at night so that when they are at the clubs the cost of their beverages is not as much as it might otherwise be. They actually arrive in the nightclubs and in the hotels obviously already having had some alcoholic intake at home.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The other issue that the member for Croydon cannot understand—although to be fair on a couple of recent occasions he has conceded that he agrees or he concedes there is an issue—is that public misbehaviour in the CBD on occasions is not solely due to alcohol, but is significantly due to illicit drugs. Young people are combining both alcohol and illicit drugs and that is causing—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: It is a bad cocktail.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is a bad cocktail, and that is causing not only significant health issues for some of them but also some of the behaviour problems that we are seeing. The simple solution for the member for Croydon and others who support him—the Deputy Premier—is in essence that you have to blame the venue operator for being the one who continues to ply these young people with alcohol.

I am the first to concede that I am sure there are one or two rogue operators who do that, and I reiterate that the boom should come down on them and they are the ones who should be penalised, if need be, with changes to their licensing hours and whatever else it might happen to be if that is required, but there is this assumption that misbehaviour is being caused by the licensees of premises in the early hours of the morning and it is alcohol related, when in many cases—perhaps even in most cases I suspect in recent days—it is illicit drug related and in some cases a combination of both. Those are the sorts of simple, broadbrush solutions that the Deputy Premier and prior to that the former premier and the member for Croydon are initiating and supporting. They have not understood what is actually going on with young people in our clubs and pubs.

The other point to make is that when this was originally being pushed as a solution, a number of high-profile cases had occurred in terms of unfortunate acts of violent behaviour. When you actually looked at them at least half of them had occurred before the hours of what is now the proposed lock in, lock out, that is before 3am. A couple of the high-profile cases were actually late in the evening before, 11pm or midnight, but certainly a good number of them are occurring before the 3am lock in, lock out.

As the Liberal leader Steven Marshall has indicated, he has a number of significant concerns about the government's code, and a number of those have been raised by young people. Again, those who are familiar with having had young people in recent years negotiating clubs and pubs in the early hours of the morning will know—particularly in relation to young women but not solely young women—that sometimes when a young woman wants to leave to go home, whether she has had enough or she is upset and wants to go home, her friends at 3am or whatever time it is will take her outside and, in numbers, escort her to a cab or to a parent who might be coming to collect her to take her home. So that particular young woman gets home safely and her friends then return to the nightclub.

What these young people are saying now is that, as a result of the lock in, lock out, that is not now going to be able to occur. If one of a group of young women wants to go home at 3.10am and the others want to kick on until 5am, the friends are going to have to say, 'Sorry, I'd love to come out and escort you to a taxi or to your dad's taxi, or whatever it is, but you're on your own,' because the Jay Weatherill Labor government's view is that we should have the lock in, lock out. So there are going to be safety issues.

People will not have as much sympathy for this, but people at nightclubs who smoke, for example, often have to go outside to have a smoke in a lane or in the street, or whatever it happens to be, after 3am and then they go back in. Of course, that will not be permissible under the new arrangements and smokers will just have to grin and bear it.

I think one of the other issues in relation to the review—and only time will tell as to who is right in relation to this—is: will all the people who cannot get in at 3am because they have been at a venue which closes at 3am and they then want to move to another venue which is open from 3am to 5am go home, or will they stay in the entertainment precinct and go to cafes, fast food joints and arcades which might still be open rather than head home at 3am?

There are two versions of that and time will tell whether all of those young people will head off home at 3am or whether some will stay on in the less controlled environments. For all the criticism of pubs and clubs, there is security, there are CCTVs and there are staff, but if you go to takeaway food outlets such as McDonald's, cafes or arcades, there is not the same level of security staff and staffing—or there has not been, I should say—as occurs in the more tightly controlled pubs and clubs.

I think that will be an issue that I do not have a strong view on one way or another but I have heard both arguments in terms of what might happen. We would hope that the problems will not stay on the streets in the less controlled environments and cause even greater problems in terms of public misbehaviour and public safety issues. Again, as Liberal leader Steven Marshall has said, this code and its impact need to be reviewed and that will certainly be one of the aspects that will need to be reviewed. The other aspects will need to be the issues of public transport, access to getting out of the precinct in a safe fashion. I know the government has announced a short-term measure of some increase to public transport which is good but ultimately the long term will be the issue.

To summarise, Liberal leader Steven Marshall has very eloquently articulated my position on this issue. He has outlined the concerns, he has nevertheless outlined the reasons why this piece of legislation will pass the parliament. Liberal members will not be voting against the legislation; Liberal members will not be disallowing the late night code prior to the March 2014 election.

In essence, the summary of the position I believe ought to be adopted is that you target the offenders, as Liberal leader Steven Marshall has indicated. Secondly, as a state we are in the process of giving police an extra 300 police officers. As the Hon. Mr Brokenshire will recall from his time as police minister, when governments give additional staffing to police, governments are in a position to say we want this particular issue to be addressed.

My view is that as part of that 300 we should be saying to the police commissioner we want additional resourcing for Friday and Saturday nights every week of the year in the entertainment precincts of Adelaide. The entertainment and tourism precincts are important for South Australia and, rather than what this government has tended to do, we should have short-term operations with extra staffing on Friday and Saturday nights. We believe that the entertainment precincts in Adelaide, out of the additional 300 staff that we are providing to police—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Five years it's going to take them for those extra police to come on.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, I understand the concerns about the length of time but whatever that length is, as we provide the additional resources there is nothing wrong with a government indicating that we want some of them to be directed to extra presence on the streets in the CBD on Friday and Saturday evenings. Look, it might also be in the Glenelg precinct as well if a government and the police commissioner believe there are problems down there as well.

I think the third issue that needs to be part of a total package or solution is some version of a sobering up centre or a dry out centre to try to assist the police. Each time they arrest somebody, two of them are taken out of the system for a period of time as they fill in the paperwork and have to look after the drunken and disorderly person. Certainly in other states and other jurisdictions versions of sobering up centres have evidently been successful. It is well worthwhile looking at that.

The fourth element of a total package should be a much greater concentration of CCTV security in and around the entertainment precincts of Adelaide. I note that the federal member for Adelaide prior to the last federal election committed to additional funding for CCTV in some parts of Adelaide. I am not sure whether that actually was approved and went through, but if it did not then some combination of federal, state and local government funding ought to be devoted to a much greater concentration of CCTV coverage in the city so that if people are misbehaving in a public place, there is a very high percentage chance of them being caught misbehaving and therefore being able to be punished by the authorities.

So, that would appear to be a much more sensible package of measures to try to tackle the misbehaviour of the minority in relation to public disorder, public misbehaviour offences, in the CBD. As Liberal leader, Steven Marshall, has said, 'Don't blanket ban punish everybody for, in essence, the misdeeds or sins of a minority.' If 98 per cent of young people happily enjoy themselves in pubs and clubs in the early hours of the morning, don't punish all 100 per cent of young people because 1 or 2 per cent have misbehaved—punish the 1 or 2 per cent. If 98 per cent of the licensees, the venue owners, are behaving and doing everything possible to manage their premises, don't punish all of them in terms of their livelihoods, punish the 1 or 2 per cent with proven records of misbehaviour in relation to breaches of the Liquor Licensing Act. Bring down the boom on the 1 or 2 per cent, don't bring down the boom on 100 per cent of the community.

On behalf of Liberal members, I summarise by saying that we strongly support Liberal leader, Steven Marshall's position on the legislation. We will not be opposing the second reading of the liquor licensing bill, and we will not be voting for a disallowance motion in relation to the late night codes, but will strongly support his concerns about the late night code and his position that all of it should be reviewed, hopefully by a Liberal government post-March 2014.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:47): I will be brief. I appreciated listening to the Hon. Rob Lucas, and I have to say that, in all the years I have been here (and he has been here a lot longer), he has always been very consistent in his approach to these issues, so it is no surprise to me that the text of the Hon. Rob Lucas's speech was as it was. He is incredibly consistent on freedom of opportunity.

I also note in the gallery a former colleague and a highly respected former deputy premier, the Hon. Graham Ingerson, and I apologise to him, as he was in here earlier, and I did not realise we were going to bring on this second reading. It is good to see him back here—obviously he still loves and enjoys his politics.

I want to put a few points on the record in the second reading debate, and that is that I do support the 3am lock-out. After discussion with my colleague, the Hon. Dennis Hood, and after consideration of other issues, the Family First position is to support the lock-out with the two amendments I have tabled. Sources we have been talking to indicate that the lock-out is working and minimising the risk of violence. In Newcastle they have had initiatives put in place to try to curb risk and allow a safer and more viable precinct, and I have been advised that that is working well in New South Wales, and likewise I understand also in Whyalla, where the Hon. Russell Wortley, my colleague, and others will be with us next week. I hope the Hon. Russell Wortley will spend some time with me checking on that while we are over in Whyalla.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: I'll keep an eye on you.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The Hon. John Dawkins, of course, will be there also as another prestigious member of the Natural Resources Committee, and I am sure he will be keen to check out how things are going in Whyalla also.

I have circulated the rationale for the amendments to colleagues, so I will not go into that now. Ultimately it is up to the council to decide how this bill is finished with respect to amendments and the bill put up by the government. Alcohol-fuelled violence is an issue, and I think we are realising that we have to do what we can to allow people to have an enjoyable and vibrant city and state in which to live, work and play, but also it needs to be a safe one. To that end, I want to highlight the good work of Encounter Youth. For years I have worked with, watched and noted down my own way the work Encounter Youth does with Schoolies Week, which will start again soon.

One section of Encounter Youth known as the Green Team has been out doing some fantastic work in the streets of Adelaide. They have a regular presence on Hindley Street. In fact, if any colleagues haven't already, I would recommend they have a look at what Mr Simon Royal did in a segment on 7.30 SA several weeks ago just to show the benefit of having the Green Team out there on the streets working with, particularly, young people but also all people out there in Adelaide. I would ask the government to support them and other groups like the Sammy D Foundation that are working on reducing alcohol-fuelled violence. Clearly, the government, as indeed is the case with all of us, does not have all the answers, but the volunteer base is there on the ground and groups like the Green Team need the government to get behind them, including with some funding.

I know not everybody is happy about the 3 o'clock lock-out—or lock-in; whichever way you want to look at it—but at the end of the day we have to be responsible in the way we go about legislating to protect our community. I believe the government has done a lot of work in this area. I know that the police have been very keen to see this lock-out.

As anecdotal evidence, on the weekend I had some friends up at home on our farm for lunch. One of them lives very close to Adelaide and she walks into Adelaide on a Saturday morning to do her errands, as she described it. She said there has been a noticeable difference walking through Adelaide over the Morphett Street bridge and into the Hindley Street area early on a Saturday morning and seeing people sitting around enjoying themselves drinking coffee, starting to go about shopping and going to work. She said she has noted, just in the couple of weeks, a clear lack in the number of intoxicated people wandering around the streets at that time.

I think the government is trying to do something for the better public policy good here, and that is why we will be supporting the principles of this bill. I hope that we can get support for our amendment. I will talk more about that once we get to the committee stage.

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

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