Liquor Bill 2007
Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority Bill 2007
Miscellaneous Acts (Casino, Liquor and Gaming) Amendment Bill 2007

Debate resumed from 28 November 2007.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [8.51 p.m.]: I have pleasure in representing the Liberal and National Coalition in respect of the Liquor Bill 2007, the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority Bill 2007 and the Miscellaneous Acts (Casino, Liquor and Gaming) Amendment Bill 2007. I preface my remarks with reference to the background of the bills. In 2005 a white paper substantially redrafting the Liquor Bill was tabled, presented to the public and put out for consultation and discussion. A draft bill also existed at the time. Considerable discussion and debate ensued through to approximately June 2006.

Sometime thereafter the Government decided that introduction of the bill would be left until after the election. That was somewhat disappointing in light of the amount of work that had gone on beforehand. A year or more has passed: an election has come and gone. In winter this year a campaign was underway—particularly through very supportive press and others, including some personalities in radio—to raise the community's awareness of and engage the community in supporting the prospect of a limited deregulation of liquor licensing laws as would permit the appearance of outlets to be known as "small bars". That campaign ran for some months and the Government took all of the community's considerable views on board to fashion the bill now before us, which is quite a significant departure from the original draft bill that was part of the 2005 white paper.

The Opposition does not oppose these significant and important bills involving an omnibus rewriting of liquor licensing laws. The whole area of liquor licensing is complicated and there is a considerable range of views within the community about the existing legislation let alone a proposal of this magnitude. Therefore, legislation of this nature deserves comprehensive treatment and forensic examination by both the Opposition and the Government.

The campaign in the immediate preceding months has been conducted mainly through the media but also through an email campaign with organisations such as Raise the Bar and other people. In gauging the tone of those emails two aspects made an impression on me. First, almost all of the representations the Opposition received, whether by email or by telephone—usually by those two methods—were in favour of creating in New South Wales a small bars industry and, to a very great extent, reforming restaurant liquor licensing. Whilst the Opposition did not make too many comments, because it was such a comprehensive and complex issue and no bill had been drafted let alone introduced into the Parliament, a number of representations made by some of those people, particularly in emails, were a little misguided.

I refer to one email that commenced circulating on Monday in a campaign from the organisation Raise the Bar. The email that went out to the organisation's network elicited 19 contacts yesterday and today through to the office of the Leader of the Opposition. Mostly the contacts were by telephone; all gave their name; all gave their telephone number; and one email was in response to the email that was sent by Raise the Bar. The email from Raise the Bar stated:

Last week the new LIQUOR BILL 2007 was tabled in the NSW Parliament for everyone to read, in preparation for the debate by both houses of the NSW Parliament this week.

It's been 25 years since the last liquor bill (when Malcolm Fraser was PM!). Now the NSW Opposition is considering delaying the new bill for another year or more!

This is the critical time for the new liquor laws for NSW, if the Bill is delayed past the next two weeks, it will be held over until next year, and new licences will not be available until 2009 at the earliest.

­­­­­Click here to LET THEM KNOW it's time for change

Stay tuned to our website each day as we have regular updates as the politicians have their say, and next weekend we will send out another bulletin with the weeks summary and a review for the final week of Parliament, where hopefully the Bill will pass.

We also need to raise much needed funds for the big push so please give what you can. Please also SEND TO YOUR FRIENDS, we need more people like you involved to get this over the line.

My purpose in reading that out is to highlight two significant errors. First, I do not know how anybody could have come to the assumption that between the introduction of the bill by the Minister last week and yesterday morning the Opposition intended to delay the bill—fatally delay the bill, the email almost suggests—to next year, which would cause the true implementation of this new bill to be in 2009. That is the second error, until 2009—at the earliest, it is helpfully pointed out. Unfortunately, this misinformation is unworthy of the organisation, particularly when it is asking the public to make monetary contributions. It is disappointing that this sort of misinformation is pedalled when, if the organisation had taken the opportunity to wait until tonight, it would have heard the comprehensive views of the Opposition. It would have heard—and I repeat it—that the Opposition has no intention whatsoever of opposing the bills. The organisation may well be disappointed that only 19 respondents took the opportunity to contact the Opposition.

As I said, these cognate bills rewrite liquor licensing laws in New South Wales. A new concept comes through these bills: the issue of low impact or high impact. The new concept creates a new definition, a new licensing regime, which takes into account at the application stage the question of low-impact small bars. I will refer to that as I go along, but I want to refer for a moment to the timing of the bills. I have some misgivings about the time that has been involved in the preparation of the bills, their appearance in the House and the need to pass them before the end of this year.

The bills are comprehensive. I am disappointed that drafting of the bills by Parliamentary Counsel was not finished until Monday of last week. Two nights later the Minister introduced the bills; they are about two inches thick. It takes a lot of work and a little more than a mere one or two days to digest their contents, especially when those one or two days are parliamentary sitting days and, as members of Parliament, we have a number of obligations, particularly on Tuesdays, involving party meetings and the processes that occur in addition to the sitting of the Parliament. I am thankful that the Minister has an attitude of cooperation and communication. I want to place on record my thanks to him personally and also to the staff whom he asked to engage in communication with me, particularly Mr Foggo and Mr Cox, who have briefed me on a number of occasions. It was the Minister's view that I did not need to be chaperoned even during those discussions, and I very much appreciate that.

In fact I do not know how I could have spoken tonight or drafted a memorandum for the Coalition in such a short period of time if it were not for the fact that expert members of the department were able to discuss various issues with me, answer all of my questions and bring me well and truly up to date on these comprehensive bills. During some of those briefings I expressed considerable reservations that it was originally intended, as of last week, that the bills should be presented to the House and passed without the tabling of draft regulations. It was explained to me—and I certainly understand the argument, although I reject it—that Parliamentary Counsel had prevailed upon the Minister and the department to not necessarily ask for draft regulations, given that the Government had promised the industry that there would be a consultation period, including forums and workshops.

As a result of those considerations, only when it was known whether there would be amendments to the bills would it be possible to draft what would then be the final regulations. Unfortunately, my view was to the contrary. The bills are comprehensive and the regulations would need to be comprehensive; the bills are too complicated and too important for the Parliament to be asked to pass them without sighting the draft regulations. During the Minister's agreement in principle speech a set of draft regulations was tabled. I was shown the draft regulations just prior to their tabling. Obviously I would not have had an opportunity to read the regulations until much later. I thank the Minister for that, because it has avoided engaging in a great deal of parliamentary process. Because of the need to be more transparent and to expose the devil of the detail of the regulations, Parliament should not be asked to write a blank cheque by passing legislation of this nature and perhaps leaving it to some future disallowance process. That is cumbersome, and I cannot recall regulations being disallowed in the 20 years that I have been a member of the House. Perhaps it has happened, and someone will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but it is a rare and unusual process.

So I was even more concerned that the draft regulations should be exposed. Now that they have been tabled—and I am very thankful for that—I take the opportunity to ask the Minister if he could give an undertaking in reply, in good faith and as a matter of principle, that these draft regulations will be for all intents and purposes the final regulations, subject to administrative adjustments, errors or unforeseen matter which may arise in consultation. Having said that, I appreciate that industry will be disappointed that the draft regulations have been tabled. That would imply that if there was bad faith the consultation process is now unlikely to be as fulsome as perhaps it could have been if regulations had not been exposed. Undoubtedly, some in the industry will claim that, therefore, the consultation process is a sham. I believe it is more important, in terms of our legislative process and the role of the Parliament, to expose draft regulations even if it incurs the ire of elements of industry. That is a bit of a dilemma, but I am confident that we will be capable of working through it.

Ideally, the bills would have been introduced and allowed to remain on the table until the consultation took place. However, in one of the consultation sessions I referred to earlier the Minister explained to me, as the director of liquor and gaming did, that certainty of time is needed so that the administrative arrangements in these bills can be put in place. I accept that. Those arrangements include the establishment of the new control authority and the abolition of the old control authority, the Liquor Administration Board—they are not small matters of administration; they are quite large—in the hope that the Act would become operative on 1 July 2008, the intended commencement date. The Opposition has no objection to that and, if anything, is willing to cooperate to enable that to take place. For all intents and purposes I believe that the consultation process and the regulations will be finalised early next year and, therefore, no part of the parliamentary or legislative process will stand in the way of the Act commencing on that date.

These bills have four principal features. The legislation combines the provisions of the Liquor Act and the Registered Clubs Act, while leaving the Registered Clubs Act to deal with the governance of clubs. That is a significant philosophical adjustment. In the past there have been two liquor Acts: the Liquor Act, which pertained to hotels, and the Registered Clubs Act, which contained provisions governing the service of liquor in clubs. This legislation will apply the same liquor provisions to the entire industry. The bill will abolish the Liquor Administration Board and replace it with a new regulatory authority, the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority, which will fold the Liquor Administration Board into the Casino Control Authority. About six months ago I had the opportunity to consult with Mr Michael Foggo and the Minister about what was intended. Happily, that will now happen. It was intended that the Liquor Administration Board would be abolished and its functions would be folded virtually directly into the department.

At the time my concern was that this would expose the various public issues that arise with licensing to direct ministerial involvement and control, and even direct exposure to the political possess, including the influence of the media and talkback programs. Although the Liquor Administration Board arrangements for the governance of the liquor industry were cumbersome and ultimately led to its demise, they were at arm's length from the political process, that is, from the Minister, the department and the Parliament. That was an important aspect of the arrangement. The independence that it was able to exercise was a good feature that should not have been abandoned. I am pleased that the new control authority retains that autonomy. That will serve the Minister and future Ministers, the Government and future governments far better than what might otherwise have been enacted.

The current legislation provides for 21 licences and the bill will rationalise that to six. Even that six include a new regime for licensing of small bars and restaurants without poker machines. The legislation contains other measures, in particular the planning process, new offences pertaining to liquor, the abolition of the social impact assessment regime and the introduction of community impact statements. The legislation also proposes reform of wine producer licences and arrangements for surf clubs and other non-profit sports clubs.

The first category of licence is a hotel licence. This will apply to premises where the primary purpose is the sale and supply of alcohol. The term "primary purpose" is significant because in due course that purpose will dictate what category of licence is relevant. Hotel licences will cover a variety of hotels and bars. However, premises that do not provide gaming or sell takeaway liquor will be able to obtain a special type of hotel licence. There will be a two-tiered licence structure, that is, a hotel licence for establishments with poker machines and one for establishments without them. A seventh category would have been appropriate because those two aspects are different even though the primary purpose and the level of impact will dictate how a licence application will proceed.

Standard trading hours—that is, from 5.00 a.m. from Monday to Saturday and 10.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. on Sunday—will be retained. Extended trading hours will be subject to a community impact statement and the prohibition on liquor trade on Good Friday and Christmas Day will be retained. I commend the Government for that, although in the immediate past a large number of extended trading hours applications has been approved. Many outlets already have extended trading hours, and those approvals will remain operative. However, new applications will be subject to the new community impact statement process.

The second category of club licence will apply to registered clubs. Existing clubs will retain unrestricted trading hours and all existing privileges. However, new applications for licensed registered clubs will be subject to community impact statements and applicants will be required to operate during standard trading hours. Again, extended trading hours will be subject to community impact statements. Registered clubs will no longer have a special place in our community. Even though existing clubs will retain their regime, new applicants will now be required to operate on a level playing field vis-a-vis hotels. I am surprised that the clubs industry did not object more strongly to this proposal. Registered clubs have a community identity and it is very important that they have community ownership and a community profile. Until now registered clubs have been very guarded and have fought hard to retain that level of separation. This legislation will water that down somewhat and create a level playing field. I am not saying that is a good thing; I am simply saying that it waters down one of the great differences that have existed.

The third category of licence is the packaged liquor licence, which is issued to liquor stores selling takeaway liquor. The conditions that apply to that licence generally remain unchanged. New licences will be subject to community impact statements, standard trading hours will apply, any extension of trading hours will require community impact statements and the same prohibitions on trading on Good Friday and Christmas Day will also apply. The fourth category of licence is the on-premises licence. This is the area in which the most novel change has taken place. It will replace existing licences for restaurants, motels, bed and breakfast establishments, theatres, universities, nightclubs, caterers, maritime vessels, airports, Governor's licences and so on. Following a community impact statement, applicants will be individually assessed by the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority, and licensing conditions will cover aspects of sales, consumption, responsible service of alcohol and so on.

This licence is not for businesses where the primary purpose is the sale of liquor. Standard trading hours will apply. By that I mean the primary purpose is the supply of food perhaps, or accommodation, but the primary purpose is not to be the supply and sale of liquor. Extensions will be permitted under the same arrangements as previously. Therefore, the sale of liquor will be an ancillary purpose, such as with a restaurant. Liquor sales can be approved, providing the primary purpose remains that of a restaurant. Nonetheless, the control authority may approve liquor sales without meals. That remains an option, but I emphasise the primary purpose aspect.

An on-premises licence will be available to operate live music and entertainment where alcohol is provided. That will replace current nightclub and theatre licences, and restrictions applying to those licences will be removed. High-impact licence applications will be subject to community impact assessments. One of two aspects warrants consideration. The first is that the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Authority will make an individual assessment of each individual applicant. That is an important aspect to note. The regime will be different from the one we learned from in Victoria. Each individual application will be individually assessed by the control authority and operating conditions—the responsible service of alcohol provisions, the provision of toilets, whatever—will be subject to approval.

It will not be a fast process. It may be a fast process if the applications were dealt with one at a time, but the thought that a couple of thousand applicants would be dealt with in a short time will prove to be illusory indeed, unless the Minister intends to hire a large cadre of staff. That needs to be pointed out so that no-one is hoodwinked into believing that this will suddenly yield up mass deregulation. I am pleased about that aspect because to do otherwise would be a little reckless, as was evident from the outcomes in Victoria. It should also be clear that in passing this legislation, the Government and the Opposition being in agreement, it is understood that conditions for each applicant in an approval will be individually assessed.

The other aspect I would like to refer to is live music. The Opposition has received a reasonable flow of representations from musicians. Of the 19 calls I referred to earlier that have been received over the past 24 hours, I believe most have been from musicians. The Opposition—and the Government also, no doubt—would like more live music and more avenues for musicians to gain experience and to make their names and so on. While the regime will be more permissive, nonetheless neighbourhood and residential amenity and the role of local government will remain. No-one should believe that there will be some sort of carte blanche approach and that live music will automatically proliferate throughout all these establishments. I believe this will remain a difficult area, not because of the music or the need to provide avenues for musicians but simply because of the important matter of urban amenity, especially if some of these restaurants are in suburban areas. That will focus the question of noise, music and neighbour ambience and amenity.

Division 5 of part 3 relates to packaged producer wholesaler licences. Those provisions will apply to wine producers, brewers, distillers and wholesalers and will allow wholesale sales to other licensees. Without going through the provisions in detail, the changes that take place within this licence will be welcomed by the wine production industry. I have a personal interest in welcoming this licence. I have always felt that wine producers have been impeded when they go to wine shows, to country fairs, farmers' markets—

Mr Andrew Fraser: AgQuip.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS: AqQuip, or wherever. They can only take orders, and when they take an order it involves freight and freight costs. That most certainly inhibits orders. Under the new licence wine producers will be able to sell their wines. That is an excellent development. The ability to sell some blended wines and the abolition of the wholesale litre limit on cellar doors will also be welcome. The final category is the limited licence, which will apply to sporting clubs and community functions as well as significant State and regional events. Existing special arrangements for surf clubs will be maintained, including the selling of alcohol at functions. Surf clubs will be able to apply for an on-premises licence to sell liquor at private functions on club premises and be able to hire out the premises, subject to planning issues, local government requirements—and, of course, that brings us back to the same issue that applied to musicians, the neighbourhood amenity.

Many surf clubs are lucky enough to be located adjacent to or be part of a park or beach with some significant buffer zones. Some are even lucky enough to have a shopping centre as the nearest built establishment with a car park. That would be a very good position. Nonetheless, that issue will revolve around the main consideration, which is planning. The on-premises licence will also enable traditional coldies and sippers. Not coming from a coastal electorate I had no idea what those two words meant, but they are traditional and that tradition will be maintained. Clubs that hire out their premises will continue to conduct these events through the limited licence, which will again be subject to responsible service of alcohol provisions and the all-vital urban neighbourhood amenity provision.

I want to make a couple of other general references. They are not specific to any one category and they are not in any order. The Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority will now be the responsible entity for extended trading hours, particularly when they relate to special events. Perhaps the most recent example of extended trading hours in this Parliament was the bill rushed into the House to extend the trading hours for the Rugby World Cup. In my mind the issue that came to the fore in relation to that bill was that it came before Parliament in the very week it needed to become operative. That was disappointing because the industry most certainly would have known four years before the Rugby World Cup the exact time, date and place of the quarter-finals, the semi-finals and the final.

I have long held the view that it is not appropriate to deal with legislation in that way and I did not agree with the bill, which bestowed powers on the Minister without reference to Parliament to approve of these special events. Now that the powers will go to the control authority, the issue will be kept at arms length. The Parliament can take comfort in the fact that, despite the recent legislative turmoil, we now have a better outcome than might otherwise have been achieved. We also have independence, which is important.

Each application will be determined individually. The authority must take into account conditions relating to the responsible service of alcohol and other physical aspects such as toilet requirements, which is one of the flaws that abounded in the winter debate of 2007. Arguments within the community and the media suggested that a toilet somewhere nearby was good enough, but that is definitely not the case. A coffee shop attached to a shopping centre may seek to sell alcohol after hours. Quite often the coffee shop is at the front entrance, partly outside and partly in the corridor of the centre, yet the toilet facilities may be down the side of the supermarket, maybe 50 to 60 paces away, at the far end of the building as the anchor tenant.

It is commercially impossible to keep an entire shopping centre open, with security, so that patrons can have access to toilets. It is more likely that toilets would not be used and patrons would use whatever is available, which would be very unfortunate. Some people may laugh, but it is a very important aspect and a serious concern for those who have had experience in high-profile entertainment areas. We do not want to see that type of behaviour transferred to low-impact establishments, especially in residential areas.

The abolition of the drink-dine authority is very welcome because it abolishes the 70:30 rule: licensed restaurants in metropolitan areas will no longer have to pay the $15,000 drink-dine application fee and licensed restaurants in rural areas will no longer have to pay the $10,000 drink-dine application fee. Genuine restaurants generally have a low impact on their surroundings, which bodes well for the future. However, I would not like to see restaurants that maintain their primary purpose become hotel-type venues that have a high impact on their surroundings after, say, 10.00 p.m. The department will have increased powers to deal with such occurrences, for example, by suspending or closing down businesses and by imposing punitive sanctions. I endorse that measure.

The Opposition also endorses the continuation of self-exclusion, but I do not think it will achieve its aim. The hope is that, after counselling, people will exclude themselves, the licensed outlet will be able to identify them, perhaps from a photograph at the bar, and the system will work well. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it does not work well. Last week an article in one of the Sydney newspapers revealed that self-exclusion by gamblers from Star City Casino was unsuccessful. Indeed, there is considerable evidence to show that gamblers who exclude themselves attend the casino frequently. There is also anecdotal evidence that self-exclusion does not work in the hotel and club industry, so my view is jaundiced.

I am pleased to note the increased regime of penalties, which will mean more involvement for the department in this area. The Opposition endorses increased fines and fines applying to minors. I commend the expanded powers to ban irresponsible liquor products and promotions. In this regard, I refer to packaged drinks, which contain not only quite a bit of sugar but also a high concentration of alcohol. These drinks can contain 8 per cent to 11 per cent alcohol, which is double a standard 330-millilitre to 375-millilitre bottle of beer. We have put considerable effort into the responsible service of alcohol, yet an easy and obvious way to make a significant difference, in cooperation with the other States, would be to reduce the alcohol content of packaged or combination drinks that are so readily available.

Small venues that sell liquor will have problems with patrons smoking and enforcing the responsible service of alcohol because identification checks in such venues will be particularly difficult. It is not realistic to suggest that small venues could afford to employ security people to stand outside the venue and check the identification of patrons. It would be cost prohibitive. We must have knowledge of each applicant and his or her ability to adhere to the conditions that will be imposed, particularly applicants who run small venues with few staff.

I ask the Minister in reply to tell us whether the draft regulations reflect the true Government position, which will stand the test of consultation. The most important aspect of the bills is the planning process, the abolition of the Liquor Administration Board and the replacement of social impact assessments with community impact statements.

I refer firstly to the ongoing criticism of the Liquor Administration Board. It has been said that the process is slow and cumbersome, that it is very expensive, that applicants have to invest in the services of consultants, that the fees are high, and that the board takes up to two years to consider applications. However, abolishing that regime and replacing it with the new control authority and community impact statements will not necessarily streamline the process, as would appear to be the case.

Once an application has been lodged it will take, say, six weeks—perhaps a little less, or perhaps a little more—to be assessed and finalised. The fee will be relatively low compared to the current fee; it will range between $500 and $2,000, depending on the level of impacts and so on. However, the shift of process to the applicant prior to the lodgment will move a lot of time from the post-application period to the pre-application period. The applicant will now be required to undertake all these assessments, undertake the consultation, get through whatever local government process is required to obtain a development application, if that is applicable, and then, once all that has been done—and it could be some months—lodge the application and expect a speedy process.

The Government is saying, "We will solve the problem, but we will shift it to the applicant." So the applicant, in completing the required process, will incur pretty well the same expense and play much the same role as that previously played by the Liquor Administration Board. For example, as provided in the supplementary document dealing with the planning process, which the Minister referred to in the agreement in principle speech, an applicant will be required to provide copies of the application and consult with at least the local council, the New South Wales Police Force, the Roads and Traffic Authority, commercial interests such as chambers of commerce, the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, the Department of Community Services, the local area health service, the Network of Drug and Alcohol Agencies, the convener of any local liquor accord, and occupiers of premises in the immediate vicinity—which might sound simple—and consult "voluntarily" with others such as tourism industry representatives. The applicant is also required to advertise his or her application, inviting stakeholders to comment. The process will still involve a significant time frame in mounting and lodging an application.

I have already stated that I do not believe this bill will take us down the path of the Victorian experience. However, it is instructive to note that the laissez faire approach that Victoria adopted resulted in a 96 per cent increase in the number of outlets, noise complaints increased by 60 per cent in one year—in 2006-07—and assaults increased by 17.5 per cent in the same year. Indeed, the Victorian Parliament is now considering comprehensive legislation to claw back the unregulated nature of what they have created in that State, to in many respects reimpose regulation on the industry. I believe that is an important aspect to take into account. I note that a similar situation has developed in Queensland and that the Queensland Premier has foreshadowed legislation to restrict trading hours in that State's hotels and clubs until, I think, midnight—which is a bold move but a move that obviously has come about because of the considerable social problems that have arisen through bad implementation, or perhaps bad legislation.

I have the benefit of having consulted with a number of organisations on these cognate bills. Clubs New South Wales made representations to me that it is extremely opposed to the lack of consultation on the regulations. I advised Clubs New South Wales that I would place that on the record. The Australian Hotels Association also has misgivings about the regulations "fiasco", as it calls it. The association informed me that it gained an impression from the Government that a level playing field would prevail on the responsible service of alcohol. I note that last week at the annual association awards function the President of the Australian Hotels Association referred to his belief that the Government would provide such a level playing field. I have interpreted that to mean in relation to the responsible service of alcohol and the licensing concerns involving toilets and those sorts of things.

Restaurant and Catering New South Wales is, understandably, strongly in favour of the reforms. The Liquor Stores Association is mostly unaffected by them. The Winemakers Association is strongly in favour of them. Surf Life Saving New South Wales has indicated its support for the reforms, admittedly only by way of a letter. I was somewhat surprised, however, that organisations involved with people who abuse alcohol, such as the Salvation Army and others, did not respond to my request for consultation on the legislation. I thought it was rather uncharacteristic of them to be so silent, and they remain silent. Regardless of whether it is a response to my request for consultation, a response to media comments, or a public statement, it surprises me that organisations such as the Salvation Army, the St Vincent de Paul Society and the Sydney City Mission have all remained silent on the legislation.

I am more concerned, however, that the Commissioner of Police, Andrew Scipione, and the New South Wales statistician, Don Weatherburn, also have remained totally silent on the legislation. They have autonomous statutory powers. They have never in the past hesitated to engage in public debate on liquor issues. Commissioner Scipione's predecessors and Mr Weatherburn took a prominent role in the various forums that have been held, particularly the Alcohol Summit that was held in Parliament House. I am quite surprised that they have remained silent. I think we have been deprived of what I would consider to be very valuable public views that should have been expressed. I do not believe it is too late for Commissioner Scipione and Mr Weatherburn to express their views on the reforms.

As I said, until recently virtually all the representations from the public have been in favour of whatever bill it was going to be—sight unseen, as long as it was favourable. Lately, however, a number of opposing views have started to flow through to the Opposition. I will read one, because it is typical of a number I have received. The House should be cognisant of the fact that the debate is not 100 per cent one way. As is always the case, a different aspect starts to emerge later in the debate. A few days ago I received an email—there is no need to identify the author because it is not relevant—which reads:

Greetings!

I am emailing you in regard to:

1. the Bill

2. the debate to be held prior to the rise of Parliament in December 2007

I am emailing all state MPs as you will all be involved in the vote.

I am asking you to make sure that liquor is not more readily available to the public than it already is—eg in cafes.

I am wondering how on earth our state government could even consider the Liquor Amendment (Small Bars and Restaurants) Bill 2007—

which, of course, is not before the House but that is what the email says—

in the light of all the accidents & deaths caused on our roads because of alcohol & because of all the family stress, violence & breakdowns caused by alcohol.

I shake my head [in amazement] that our state government could even discuss making consumption of alcohol even more readily available to members of the public, especially to people who have most likely driven their cars to the café.

I have heard that the move is to allow "small bars and dining areas to rejuvenate areas in the lanes of the inner city to allow smaller venues to trade. This gets away from the large drinking barn like monopoly of big pub industries. It directs drinking to a more balanced and European style premise that can enhance the cultural value of little unused lanes etc in the inner city in particular. Lower consumption in a more cultural ambience would assist in the control of binge drinking and associated alcohol-fuelled violence."

I am sorry but I fail to see how any of this makes any difference to my concerns raised above.

If you intend to vote FOR this proposal, can you, in all conscience, offer me an explanation please?

I implore you to do all that you can to see that this issue is strongly opposed.

I anticipate the bill will pass through both Houses within a day or so, and I am sure similar views will start to be expressed in greater volume after the bill has been passed. I thank the Minister for informing me earlier today of the amendments the Government proposes to move. I place on record that I will make a couple of remarks in the Committee stage. First, we will support the proposed amendment and, second, I thank the Minister for the consultation. I conclude my remarks by saying that this is a most comprehensive bill in a most complicated area of legislation. It is not an easy issue for either political or community considerations. I hope whatever the views of the members of the public might be, they will accept and appreciate that members of Parliament on both sides of the House have given the bill a lot of consideration and thought.

Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Minister for Housing, and Minister for Tourism) [9.51 p.m.]: The tourism industry has been looking forward to changes to the liquor laws for years. We have worked closely with those who work in tourism to ensure the changes increase visitors to regional New South Wales and support regional businesses. As tourism Minister, and a former small-business owner in regional New South Wales, I welcome the new liquor laws as do many others who are passionate about tourism. Phil Hele, for instance, a board member of Tourism New South Wales and founder of the Blue Tongue Brewery, said:

This is great for tourism and great for the tourism industry. It will clear the red tape and let small business get on with giving the customer what they want.

Greg Binskin, the General Manager of Tourism Wollongong, and recent award winner at the New South Wales Tourism awards, said:

These new laws will encourage people to dine outside of the peak periods of lunch and dinner thereby effectively creating the opportunity for increased expenditure throughout regional cafes and restaurants.

Allowing more venues to have better access to liquor licences will attract extra investment in business, bring in more tourists and introduce more products on to the market. The strange anomaly of not being able to purchase wine at regional wine markets or at tastings has been rectified. These new laws will also allow bed and breakfast establishments, serviced apartments and farm-stay accommodation to sell alcohol. All these changes will support small business in rural and regional New South Wales and attract more tourists to many of the wonderful destinations this State has to offer. I support the bill.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [9.53 p.m.]: I register the sentiment of the community that we have not had appropriate consultation. Indeed, the relevant stakeholders in the community are just starting to get their heads around this complex debate. First and foremost I think additional consultation is required and we ask the Minister to take that on board as he finalises the draft regulations. I also congratulate the member for the Upper Hunter on his comprehensive—and I think we need to use that word quite clearly—speech and understanding of the legislative provisions. I have certainly learnt many things from the member for the Upper Hunter tonight. I cannot say that every night. He outlined a very detailed proposition that has full credibility and contains a number of initiatives and ideas the Government should take on board. I also commend many in the community for their work on problems associated with liquor that we have experienced in Manly. Problems associated with liquor have been a significant issue in Manly and over the past few years many of those problems have occurred after midnight.

Manly has a number of large bars. Many people have worked tirelessly on this issue. The bill introduces something that the community supports: the spirit of the small bar. The onus is on the Government to ensure that the spirit of small bars is manifested in the final form of the regulations and does not lead to the fear that on every corner, whether it is take-away or convenience stores, liquor will be available. We endorse increasing the attractiveness of the landscape and the spirit of Manly and we congratulate the Minister on the undertaking. I will identify a few people in Manly Council who have played a key role in dealing with some of the liquor issues over the past few years. I will then raise some concerns that I want the Minister to take on board.

Three or four years ago Manly Council instituted a Manly After Midnight policy. The council looked at the closing times of licensed premises to determine whether they could be staggered. It also considered insisting that all licensed premises be a signatory to the Manly Liquor Accord. I will return to the accord and some of its initiatives. Ultimately my primary concern in relation to this legislation is the accord. Manly Council has also considered conducting noise audits of late night activities. The council has reviewed the use of multiple taxi ranks late at night. Consistent with the recommendations of the late night transport working groups, all taxi ranks should have security and their location should be advertised so that people who attend late night venues are aware where it is safe to catch taxis. The council and the safety committee investigated engaging additional security staff to patrol public places. I pay credit to the mayor, Peter Macdonald, who has played a key role in driving this initiative and other councillors who have been involved. I also pay tribute to my predecessor, David Barr, who worked on some of these issues.

Manly Council also considered how it could encourage greater diversity of family-friendly entertainment facilities in the Manly central business district. My hope is that the provision of small bars will lead to more family-friendly amenities across the landscape of Manly. Again, the devil will be in the detail of the finalised regulations. Finally, the council has made representations for increased penalties for drinking within alcohol-free zones. Manly has had a lot of problems in that regard and the council has been very proactive. There has also been significant community input. Those around The Corso area have had significant input, emphasising their concerns predominantly about trading hours and what people leave in their wake when walking home.

Under the leadership of Kim McKay the proactive policing policy has been increased. It is a brave approach for police to take because their statistics will get worse before they get better. In the past three years statistics have improved and the number of alcohol-related assaults is starting to fall. The Manly Chamber of Commerce has played a role by providing money to upgrade The Corso. The Corso and its surrounding amenities are key requirements in minimising problem behaviour. The Chamber of Commerce has made the area more attractive and improved the lighting, which helped with some of the problems.

The liquor accord has played an important role in bringing together licensees, the community, police and other stakeholders. The licensees often get a bad rap in the press. The Steyne Hotel has set an example in the community by recently banning high-intoxication drinks, the Manly Wharf bar has imposed entry restrictions on groups of people and all the licensees in the area have played a role in voluntary lockouts. All those factors—the liquor accord, the council, the chamber of commerce, the police and the community—have played a role in improving the position. I draw to the Minister's attention two concerns I have in relation to this legislation. My first concern relates to the membership of the liquor accord. Of the 180 licensees in the Manly area, less than 25 are signed-up members of the liquor accord. That is a small number. A liquor licence carries the burden of social impacts on the local community, such as security, transport and lighting issues. If all the licensees were members of the liquor accord, the accord would have an ability to fund initiatives as prescribed by the community to deal with the problems.

At present, a number of licensees are not sharing the load. In fact, only two hotelsthe Steyne Hotel and the Ivanhoe Hotelhave carried the burden of funding initiatives. The Government should include in the regulations the concept of compulsory membership or a prescription that every licensee in the community makes a contribution to initiatives, if required by the liquor accord. I note that the authority may direct a licensee to contribute to liquor accord initiatives. I believe the provision should be more definitive. If all the community—local precincts, council, liquor accord, safety committees—agrees to initiatives, a mechanism must be in place to ensure that every licensee makes a contribution. It is unfair to ask a few to carry the burden. That is my main concern in the brief time I have had to consult on the bill. I will look at the draft regulations in more detail with the liquor accord, the council and the local precincts and bring any concerns they have to the Minister.

The second concern I have relates to trading hours. Local community input into trading hours is not clearly defined in the legislation. The new standard trading hours will be generally Monday to Saturday till midnight and Sunday night till 10.00 p.m. Existing hours will be maintained. I do not seek prescribed trading hours, but the local community should be involved in setting acceptable trading hours. That should be a key factor. That also extends to the small bars bill in relation to trading hours, the impact on the community and so on. There must be more local involvement. A mayoral minute report states that the following resolution was passed:

That local Council be given a consent role in the determination of licensing hours in licensed premises.

That was the council's main concern about this bill. The mayoral minute continues:

At present, a Council has the right to make a submission to the Licensing Court in response to an application but such submissions appear to carry little weight By giving the Council, and therefore the community, a consent role is proper and logical as the Council understands the local conditions well, appreciates the impacts felt by local residents and, as at present, picks up the "tab" for the costs associated with mitigation

Although I support the overall thrust of the council's argument, I do not believe the local council should have the sole consent role. I believe it should be the council, local precincts and the liquor accord. The bill should provide a mechanism to determine whether a venue's trading hours are acceptable to the local community. Further, before locking in new standard trading hours, existing trading hours should be looked at. My final concern relates to surf life saving clubs. This legislation provides an excellent opportunity to support the operation of these clubs. In the Year of the Lifesaver, all the lifesaving clubs in my area—Manly, North Steyne, Queenscliff, Freshwater, South Curl Curl and North Curl Curl—require support in every capacity, particularly in relation to facilities and amenities.

Requests for grants will be made to the Minister for Sport and Recreation in due course. With this bill we have an opportunity to provide for surf life saving clubs to hold functions in the confines of their premises. The local community should support and embrace their surf clubs. Local government involvement is included in the draft regulations to allow flexibility. Approval to hold functions should not rest solely with the local government. The bill should include a provision to enable a commonsense approach by both the State Government and local government. I thank the Minister for bringing the bill to the House. I trust he will take on board these recommendations.

Ms JODI McKAY (Newcastle) [10.00 p.m.]: I support the Liquor Bill 2007, which represents an impressive reform of the licensing laws in New South Wales. I congratulate the Minister for Gaming and Racing on the measures contained in the bill. I refer to the objects of the bill. The bill regulates and controls the sale, supply and consumption of liquor in a way that is consistent with the expectations, needs and aspirations of the community. The bill also facilitates the balanced development in the public interest of the liquor industry through a flexible and practical regulatory system with minimal formality and technicality. The bill provides the balance that is required in the community. No more has this been seen than in the inner city of Newcastle. Newcastle is a good case study. It is important when debating this legislation that we consider its practical application around the State. On weekends in the summer months up to 30,000 young people come into Newcastle to attend venues in a two-kilometre area bordered by Hunter and King streets. As the young people walk between the premises, they pass a number of derelict buildings in the inner city. There have been significant issues of assaults and antisocial behaviour, all linked to alcohol.

Parents have a right to expect their young people to come home safely. I support our young people's right to go out, have fun, take part in entertainment and visit the venues. They also have a right to come home safely. In some cases, that has not happened in our inner city. A New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research report delivered three weeks ago showed that just under half of all assaults in Newcastle are alcohol related. Crime mapping shows those assaults predominantly occurred in the inner city between midnight and 6.00 a.m. on weekends. In September this year Newcastle police recorded 139 alcohol-related assaults, compared with 99 the previous year. Following the introduction of a range of measures, yesterday's Newcastle liquor accord meeting recorded a marginal decrease in the number of alcohol-related assaults in October and November of about 2.5 per cent.

The measures include the establishment of a crime prevention partnership, which was introduced by the Premier in May this year. That initiative brings together all government agencies to look towards a solution in crime hot spots, such as Newcastle's inner city. I commend the agencies for the work they have done and I also commend members of the Newcastle liquor accord for their collaboration, cooperation and initiatives. As a result, additional late-night transport services have been introduced in Newcastle—this is about the third or fourth weekend they have been running—and two new secure taxi ranks have been located at Hamilton and in Hunter Street. Also we have seen extra Viking funding for police over the past few months. These measures are warranted and I support them. However, as it stands the legislation has not supported nor has it been responsive to the community's concern about alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in cities such as Newcastle.

In Newcastle the community, residents, business leaders and business owners have called for a curfew: a 1.00 a.m. curfew and a 3.00 a.m. lockout have been proposed. After significant community pressure the licensees agreed to a 3.00 a.m. curfew in the inner city, and I commend them for their response to community concern. In conjunction with that, the local police have undertaken a section 104 action against four licensed premises in Newcastle. I spoke to the local area commander yesterday and he informed me that since the action began in July the local police have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours gathering evidence against these licensed premises. This action is still ongoing and it is back in court next July. Division 5—sections 87 to 90 of the bill—permits the Director of Liquor and Gaming to declare lockouts and curfews to reduce patron migration between areas, and to impose or vary licence conditions. This is a good, responsive measure.

I also comment on the introduction of community impact statements set out under division 2, section 48 of the bill, which will provide a more direct form of community consultation to ensure local stakeholders are properly consulted in licence applications. The introduction of community impact statements will address concerns about the current liquor social impact assessment process, which has been criticised for being costly, time consuming, subjective, incomplete and often bewildering to residents and other stakeholders. The simpler and less costly community impact statement will gauge the potential impacts of new hotels, clubs, bottle shops, restaurants and other licensed venues on the local community.

Other measures in this bill that will be welcomed by my community include the fact that licensees and staff repeatedly caught supplying alcohol to minors and intoxicated patrons face maximum fines of $11,000 and/or 12 months jail. That is up from $5,500. Minors caught inside licensed venues or purchasing alcohol from licensed venues will face a fine of up to $2,200. These new measures are welcomed also, as are the enhanced provisions of the liquor accord. The member for Manly spoke about the liquor accord in Manly. I also commend the members of the Newcastle liquor accord who, as I said, have worked in a collaborative and cooperative way in introducing measures.

I note that in this bill accords will apply to the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority to ban troublemakers from member licensed venues. The director also will be able to require licensees to contribute funding to liquor accords to strengthen their ability to address alcohol-related problems in the community. The member for Manly raised that point and I direct him to the bill because it is included in it. Within a cluster or precinct, in sharing the burden of the initiatives posed by the accord in relation to better transport and increased security, the director will be able to require licensees to contribute funding to liquor accords. I also note the ability of resident groups to be included on accords. That is important, particularly for community and resident groups in an inner-city location such as mine. It is important that they have a voice and it is important that there is transparency in the operation of the accord. I note some criticism of accords in the past because they have not included residential community groups unless it is in a voluntary capacity or by agreement of all members of the accord. I note criticism that there has not been transparency. I certainly welcome that initiative.

Under this legislation restaurants will be able to seek approval to allow liquor sales without a meal with conditions to be determined by the new authority. The advent of new small bars and restaurants is welcome in Newcastle. We have the restaurant strips of Darby Street, Honeysuckle, The Junction, Hamilton, and inner Newcastle and this will increase the vibrancy of these areas. Importantly, it will increase choice for people who choose to go to these areas. It is great to see that will be done in a responsible manner while ensuring that there is community input.

The bills will substantially increase the opportunity for local communities and local councils to be consulted and involved in liquor licensing decisions. I had a discussion with the Lord Mayor of Newcastle yesterday, who attended the liquor accord meeting, and he is certainly in favour of many of the measures in these bills. Local communities and local councils will find the liquor licensing process simpler to understand and easier to navigate. Their views will be taken into account more readily through a system that reduces cost and red tape while maintaining due process. The package of reforms will modernise and simplify New South Wales' liquor laws to reflect the changing industry needs and community standards. On behalf of my community, I commend the bills to the House.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [10.15 p.m.]: Alcohol is both a blessing and a curse. As Lord Chesterton put it: No animal ever invented anything so bad as drunkenness, or so good as drink. We therefore need clear laws that promote sensible consumption of alcohol as one of the great enjoyments of life, and strong laws to proscribe the irresponsible consumption of alcohol, which is the cause of so much evil in our society. New South Wales does not have a great history when it comes to the regulation of liquor—from the Rum Corps, to the six o'clock swill, to the giant drinking barns of today, some of which are honey pots for crime and disorder.

Evidence clearly demonstrates that strong, clear liquor regulation is vital to control the adverse impacts of the irresponsible service and consumption of alcohol. For example, a recent article in the Drug and Alcohol Review indicates that more than two-thirds of assaults and street incidents in some areas are related to the consumption of alcohol. Recent research also indicates that almost 15 per cent of all recorded alcohol-related police activity involved dealing with assault. The link between alcohol and domestic violence is particularly stark. Almost half of violent incidents associated with the consumption of alcohol were domestic violence related.

Current licensing laws have not been working effectively. Recent New South Wales police data shows that 35 per cent of all offenders who had been drinking—and 60 per cent in urban areas—had been doing so on licensed premises. Half had been drinking at just 10 per cent of the premises. Current licensing laws have also been difficult and expensive to enforce. Alcohol-related crime absorbs a huge amount of police resources. For example, a recent study funded by the National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund, an initiative of the National Drug Strategy, entitled "Estimating the short-term cost of police time spent dealing with alcohol-related crime in New South Wales", found that 16.8 per cent of police time on Friday afternoons and nights is spent dealing with alcohol-related activities and 17.8 per cent of police time on Saturday afternoons and nights is spent dealing with alcohol-related activities.

It was estimated that the total salary bill across the 80 local area commands in New South Wales for, effectively, addressing alcohol-related problems was of the order of $50 million per annum. National research conducted in 2002 estimated that throughout Australia alcohol-related crime costs police services almost $650 million per annum. There is clearly a strong case for change, and this change has been a long time coming. As the member for Upper Hunter explained in rather epic detail, after a white paper process and an abortive first draft bill, the effective rewrite of the 1982 Liquor Act is now before this House.

I note that part 2 of the Liquor Bill sets out the principal offences relating to the sale and supply of liquor. I will not go into those now because they have already been covered by the member for Upper Hunter and other members. I will focus on a couple of aspects of the bill that will have particular impacts upon my community of Pittwater. First, however, I extend my gratitude to, and acknowledge the hard work of, police in dealing with alcohol-related crime in my local area command of the Northern Beaches. I record my gratitude to Doreen Cruickshank, Dave Walton, Graeme Pickering, Paul Devaney and all their officers in addressing this serious problem in my community of Pittwater.

I refer to the impacts of the Liquor Bill on Pittwater specifically. I note that there will be significant impacts upon the service of alcohol at the 11 surf clubs that provide such great service to the public at our magnificent beaches. The bill proposes two specific licence categories, which will have specific application to surf clubs largely maintaining the current system. First, clubs will be able to apply for an on-premises licence as set out in part 3, division 4. The on-premises licence will allow each club to serve liquor at private functions held at surf clubs. Of course, in applying for such a licence each club will have to first satisfy the local council that the licence will not generate adverse impacts on the amenity enjoyed by surrounding residents. I note that the member for Newcastle talked about community impact and its assessment.

Clubs will be required to ensure the responsible service of alcohol. Enabling liquor sales at private functions in a licensed and regulated environment of a surf club is clearly preferable to forcing the adoption of practices where people bring their own liquor to functions, where there is no supervision and the responsible service of alcohol requirements simply do not apply. The bills also provide that surf clubs that do not wish to serve alcohol at private functions, or where they are unable to do so because there will be unacceptable impacts on the local community, will still be able to serve liquor at weekly coldies—or, as they are called in Pittwater, sippers. I note that that is what they are called at my surf club, Mona Vale surf club. It is celebrating 85 years of service to the Pittwater community this year, which corresponds with the Year of the Lifesaver. That is terrific.

A limited liquor licence will apply to the traditional weekly drinks at surf clubs, which is a sensible recognition of an important tradition of the surf lifesaving movement and a really important part of the fabric of many coastal communities such as Pittwater. I acknowledge that the member for Waverley is in the ChamberI am sure the same is true of his community. However, I note that clause 36 (5) (b) restricts the limited licence to Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. I point out to the Minister that many surf clubs hold their sippers on Friday evenings, after evening training on boards, skis, boats or in the gym. People go to training after work and then they like to have a beer at the club. Traditionally Friday evening is a time when sippers are held. This is an area in which I ask that the Minister consider an appropriate amendment so that the traditional Friday night coldies are included under the limited licence scheme. I think that area could be looked at.

Facilitating sensible access to liquor licences by surf clubs will really help to finance the vital work of the surf lifesaving movement, which has become increasingly expensive. Running a surf club, patrols, education and competition costs tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars each year. An inflatable rescue boat costs about $12,000, all-terrain vehicles cost up to $20,000, and manikins for use in training for a surf lifesaving certificate, bronze medallion or advanced resuscitation certificate can cost upwards of $10,000. This is a lot of money. Providing reasonable access to a limited yet flexible licensing scheme for surf club functions is a really positive step, and I welcome it.

The new category of on-premises licences will also help to foster a mature café culture where alcohol might be served without the need to serve food, provided that community impacts can be appropriately managed. There are several opportunities for this sort of business to operate in my community of Pittwater, in the booming village centres of Avalon, Newport, Mona Vale and elsewhere. Of course, any change in liquor laws brings the potential for antisocial behaviour, but it also brings hope that a better culture towards the service and consumption of alcohol might be developed. This change is long overdue in New South Wales, where the law and society have tolerated a bad drinking culture for far too long. Much consultation in regard to the regulations, to which there is constant reference throughout the bill, will still be needed. We may need to review the operation of the legislation after some time. However, liquor laws have served to create too many distortions in the way in which we serve and consume alcohol, and change such as that proposed in the bill is desperately needed.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE (Strathfield—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.25 p.m.]: As a passionate supporter of all the creative industries I am absolutely thrilled about, and pleased to speak in support of, the Liquor Bill 2007, the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority Bill 2007 and the Miscellaneous Acts (Casino, Liquor and Gaming) Amendment Bill 2007. I commend the Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for Sport and Recreation, his hardworking ministerial staff and the department for all the work they have done to bring the bills to the Chamber tonight. The Minister has eruditely talked about the wide-ranging benefits associated with this new liquor licensing framework. In my presentation tonight I would like to primarily focus on the great benefits and outcomes that this will bring to the wide range of those involved in live performance industries.

Many people that I have spoken to support the new liquor laws. All are seeking a safe place for us to not only listen to but also see and be part of live entertainment. The musicians I have spoken to are also looking forward to the modernisation of our liquor laws. For example, I have spoken recently with Paul Joseph, a musician since 1983. He has been playing professionally for more than 30 years. He is a very talented and experienced person. He has told me that in the past 15 to 30 years there has been, sadly, a steady and constant decline in employment opportunities across the board for professional players. As hole-in-the-wall venues were unable to comply with the rigorous and over-the-top licensing regime, little venues started to disappear suddenly and without explanation, without a trace. Everyone started to wonder why this was happening. Many fine musicians in this State, very sadly, lost the opportunity to find work. Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne have healthy, vibrant music scenes. It is absolutely imperative that we do not waste an instant and that we provide the environment and culture for these music scenes to grow and to flourish.

Currently in Sydney if people want to see a band it is commonplace for them to have to walk through a venue, sometimes a club, past wall after wall of poker machines, and finally find a small, stale room where they might see some live entertainment. That is very uninviting and totally inappropriate for families, especially those with small children, and for our youth. I am not criticising our wonderful clubs; everyone in this Chamber knows how much I have fought for, and try to support, the club movement. Many clubs are doing a fantastic job; they are thriving and prospering, and so be it. They put so much back into the community through their benefits scheme. We should be able to take our children and young people to see and hear affordable, good-quality live music. It is great if people can go to a venue and see someone like Justin Timberlake and cough up the $145 or so to do it, but that is not for everyone. There has to be choice.

The reforms that will come about as a result of these bills will make a profound change to our cultural heritage. Sydney was once recognised as one of the great music centres of the world. Many musicians gravitated to Sydney, even those from New Zealand. Sydney was recognised and talked about as a great cultural hub. Indeed, many of our great bands that have become internationally famous cut their teeth in this music scene, some in venues in King Street, Newtown, others in the southern and western regions. They had a chance to cut their teeth as part of the live music scene. Of course, the economic value and the export dollars that this reform will bring will guarantee wonderful benefits to New South Wales and to our city, but also will benefit the cultural environment.

Many musicians have told me that the only place they can find work is in an RSL club, which is great. They also play for corporate clients. Their choices have been severely restricted. There is a ripple effect from the thousands of fine musicians who are out of work. Many people in ancillary occupations suffer similarly because ancillary people go with live music and live venues. A musician should be financially stable just like every other talented and skilled person. One musician told me that he travels to a show, unpacks, practices, performs, prepares the pays and packs up and, excluding his travel costs—the petrol, wear and tear on his vehicle and so on—he ends up working for around about $2.50 and $5.00 an hour. That is absolutely appalling. Plumbers and sparkies can earn $75 an hour. That is good, but why can our talented musicians who have studied for years not be treated fairly? I cannot understand why members of the Opposition are not champing at the bit to support this legislation.

[Interruption]

Not everyone fully supports it. Comments were made about insufficient consultation. The draft bill has been out for 18 months, which is plenty time for consultation. Every day that we dilly-dally limits the opportunity for musicians to improve their situation. Some members over there must live in a cocoon or a bubble; they do not know was happening under their very noses. They should take a walk around the streets and look at what is happening. Legislation will no longer stifle musicians from playing to the public and promoting their music. These reforms will provide for lively entertainment. Of course, competition will still be an aspect of the industry, and that is great because it will provide musicians with the opportunity to hone their skills, which will benefit everyone.

I also spoke with Richard Ruhle, a blues drummer and industrial organiser with the musicians section of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. He said that the live music industry has been regulated out of existence and that these changes are a big step towards reversing that terrible situation, or at least providing the opportunity and incentive to change it for the music industry. I hope these reforms create greater competition and more opportunities in hotels, clubs and licensed venues. It would be wonderful to revert to the 1980s and 1990s, when it was possible to be part of the vibrant music scene and to watch 100 musicians playing every night in the hub of the city.

I recently organised a concert in my electorate of Strathfield—the greatest electorate in the State, although some members might disagree. One of the reasons I organised Oz Rock Rescue at Burwood Park was to provide a venue for musicians. The performers included Backsliders, Rattlesnake, a couple of young men from Liverpool and some very fine Australian musicians who did a Pink Floyd extravaganza. In fact, that act had a two-night engagement at The Basement. How many places like The Basement are there left in the city?

Ms Clover Moore: One! The Basement.

Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: There are very few. Performances on both nights were sold out. My hardworking colleague the member for Sydney endorses what I am saying. She knows what is happening in the city. We need more venues at which these people can perform to vibrant audiences of people who enjoy this great music. Of course, music has a great civilising effect. It helps to build communities and to connect people. Everyone benefits from the music scene. Dave Theak, a lecturer in jazz studies at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, has advised me that Australia produces world-class jazz musicians and that we must make it easier to set up venues so these musicians can practise their craft. That says it all. It is great to hear support in that regard from my colleagues. They know that this legislation will facilitate that goal.

A nightclub licence in Sydney costs $60,000 under the current Liquor Act. Presently grassroots venues and alternative entertainment are not viable and that diminishes the cultural landscape of our city and our State. With the enactment of this legislation the licence fee for live music venues will be about $500. These reforms specifically encourage grassroots entertainment while also supporting larger initiatives. The creation of a new on-premises liquor licence for live music venues will bring a number of existing licence categories into a single, simpler and cheaper class that will support entertainment venues in New South Wales for years to come. That is great. These bills provide a series of eagerly anticipated reforms that will benefit the live music sector and offer public entertainment in cinemas, theatres or any other premises whose primary activity is to provide entertainment to members of the public.

Many Australians are screaming for an alternative to reality and pay television. Music lovers want live music—be it fringe, reggae, developmental, hip-hop, grunge, opera or divas. Creative industries also want live entertainment—be it Shakespeare, poetry, storytelling, recitals or stand-up comedy. Some clientele may even want to have debates and discussions at their local invite-a-politician night and spend an evening discussing representative democracy interspersed with music. Why not? The world is our oyster. These reforms will unshackle the live music industry, enhance the quality of entertainment venues, strengthen the tourism and hospitality industries and ultimately give everyone more choice.

More than 900 submissions were received during the consultation process from community organisations, the general public, local councils, businesses and industry associations and government agencies. That was a lot of consultation. Of those 900 submissions, 650 were about the struggling live music industry. I hope that these reforms will result in the revival of the village artist, the neighbourhood poet and the backyard musician. I hope that they will create family-friendly watering holes on our local street corners for neighbours to meet. They will provide a place for family and friends to celebrate and share experiences, to soothe the soul—or perhaps to enliven it—to cure loneliness or perhaps to rebel against mainstream media and large sports screens. They are fine, but we need more choice.

In 1998 the Musicians Union of New South Wales surveyed its members on why work was disappearing. The driving force behind this survey, Professor Bruce Johnson, then teamed up with Dr Shane Homan. In the 2003 they received funding from the Australia Council and the New South Wales Ministry for the Arts to prepare the "Vanishing Acts Report". The findings in that paper then informed the drafting of an issues paper for government by the Premier's Department in early 2005. Special mention must be made of the contributions of Victoria Owens, Program Manager, Music, from Arts New South Wales, who has played a major part in the implementation of these reforms, Shane McMahon from Arts New South Wales, Richard Ruhle from the Musicians Union and the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, and, of course, John Wardle. John is in the Chamber with supporters tonight. I am inspired by the enormous amount of work he has done on this issue over 3½ years. I have heard that he is a talented musician. He knows many people in the industry and I trust and have faith in his briefings. I commend him for his energy, drive and intelligence.

These new liquor laws strike a balance between community and music industry needs now and into the future. This is yet another example of the Iemma Government taking proactive steps to provide the best possible environment for all. I encourage all members of Parliament to support these necessary reforms.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [10.40 p.m.]: Before I deal with the bill I declare my interest as the part owner of a hotel and a former licensee. I also thank the Minister for the job he has done. I particularly thank the member for Upper Hunter, the shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing, for leading the debate for the Opposition and so ably explaining why we will not oppose this legislation. However, having listened to the member for Strathfield I have to make a couple of comments. She said the bill has been on the table for 18 months. If that is so I ask the Minister to declare where he has been hiding it for 18 months. We were made aware of it only last week. It was introduced into this House only last week, and the member for Strathfield should know that. Further, she said that musicians are being paid $2.50 an hour. I am a former musician. I played in pubs back in 1965 and I never played for $2.50 an hour. The music industry will certainly be provided with more venues, and I compliment the Minister for noting the work of musicians and the contribution they make to the entertainment industry and the State of New South Wales.

I speak tonight as a former hotel licensee. I want to put on the table some practical concerns I have in relation to some of the changes in these bills. First of all, as the shadow Minister and member for Upper Hunter said earlier, the Opposition will not oppose the bills. However, one concern I have, and I am sure I speak for anyone involved in the industry, is the charge or fine for licensees or employees of hotels when an underage person is found in a hotel. The maximum fine for a licensee is currently $5,500, and I am concerned that this will be doubled to $11,000 for repeat offenders. Currently the fines imposed on minors are minimal. All persons under the age of 18 would know they should not be in a hotel; they know they should not be there. What is the penalty for them? It is $50. It is a disgrace, because that is not a deterrent to anyone under the age of 18. I hope I have misread this provision, but I ask the Minister to look at it again. Minors will have nothing to lose compared with licensees.

Ms Virginia Judge: It is the licensees who let them in when they are under age.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: The member for Strathfield says the licensees should not let them in if they are under 18. She ought to try to manage a hotel. I do not know of any licensee who says to any person under 18, "Come in." However, people who are under 18 have entered through windows because they could not get in the front door and then hid in the hotel, but no 16-year-old or 17-year-old could honestly say they did not know they were not allowed in licensed premises. They will tell you they are not supposed to be there, but they will do everything to be there. The supply of alcohol to these young people is the responsibility of the licensee. Again all the emphasis is on the licensee. People under 18 are not patrons, but young men and women under 18 will still try to get alcohol knowing they should not have it. For them the penalty is very little but the penalty for the licensee is exorbitant.

I want to comment on the on-premises licence. Will the Minister clarify for me whether all the staff of these premises will be expected to obtain responsible service of alcohol certification? Will these premises be expected to have toilets? I ask the Minister what arrangements will be made when he has to close down premises, such as a restaurant. Licensees of clubs and pubs and other areas have a great responsibility for moving on crowds and getting them out of their premises at closing time. I am concerned about that.

The other issue I want to raise relates to limited licences, and I notice that surf clubs are referred to. In country and regional areas show societies and sports grounds, which are usually run by trustees for land owned by the lands department, depend on having a show a year or events at the showground. Under current licensing regimes the on-costs for running functions or shows now make it unviable for show societies to have bars at those grounds. I stand to be corrected, but at the moment I understand a showground can apply for a licence and will be allowed to have two functions a year.

The Bonalbo Show Society got in touch with me earlier in the year. Because the show was on 27 April one year and the next year it was on 28 April, it could not get a licence for the next year's show because it was one day over the 12 months. It could run three functions in the one year but it was not allowed to run a bar at that show. That caused a great commercial loss to the show society. The on-costs for picnic race meetings that are held only once a year make it unviable for these race clubs to have a bar, and it is important for them to have that income. It is important not only from the income point of view but also from the point of view of providing fellowship for people at local shows so they can have a yarn about the drought or whatever.

The last point I want to touch on is the Liquor Accord. I pay tribute to all the liquor accords that are operating, especially the ones in the Lismore electorate. They have been very successful. However, I would like the premises licence arrangements to include a condition that they are part of a liquor accord. Usually, if there is a problem with licensed premises in a community you can bet London to a brick those licensed premises are not part of a liquor accord. The community benefits if the responsibilities of the premises include being part of the liquor accord. It is important for all liquor outlets to be involved. Most communities have bottle shops and liquor outlets in major shopping centres, and they operate in the early hours of the morning. Alcohol may be purchased at 8.00 a.m., yet they have no responsibility whatsoever to be part of a liquor accord. For the good of the community and the industry, it should be part of the licensee's responsibility to be part of the liquor accord. The accords that work well have been a credit to the people who take part in them, but if there are now to be more outlets in the community they should all be made aware of the problems.

Problems can arise with festivals in country towns. One example is the successful Lismore Cup held last Saturday at Lismore. The Lismore Turf Club, the hotel and clubs worked with police for the past 12 months to prepare for this race day. They provided buses and undertook crowd control, not only during the races but afterwards when people went back to the licensed premises. The success was the result of everyone working together. However, I am aware that two or three establishments do not take part in the liquor accord and do not realise the work involved in making the race day a success. There was one problem, and it involved premises that are not part of the liquor accord.

In addition, other liquor outlets that are not part of the liquor accord provide alcohol to people who take their own eskies. It is in the interests of the industry and regional communities for those outlets to have to take some responsibility as part of the licensee arrangements under the local liquor accord. I understand that certain points are lost for different offences and that the dollar amount is covered in the regulations. I am happy to have made a contribution to the debate, and I thank the Minister for finally bringing the bills forward. I thank also the shadow Minister for his effort in preparing the arguments on behalf of the Opposition.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [10.51 p.m.]: I strongly support the Liquor Bill 2007, for which there is overwhelming community support. After publicly giving notice of the introduction of my Liquor Amendment (Small Bars and Restaurants) Bill, people from across New South Wales lobbied hard in support of reform. Thousands of people took part in the campaign by signing petitions, sending electronic drinks to their members of Parliament through Raise the Bar, posting comments on blogs, joining a Facebook group, or contacting members of Parliament. I would particularly like to acknowledge the brilliant efforts of the Raise the Bar group, representatives of whom are in the gallery tonight. They motivated almost 8,000 people to act. I understand that on Monday Raise the Bar got over 500 people to call the Leader of the Opposition in one day to ask him to support debate on this bill taking place this year. Their message is that it is time for change.

I have received letters from across the State, including from Terrigal, Port Macquarie, Ballina, Wombarra, the South Coast, Newcastle, and all over Sydney, and particularly from Ryde, Lane Cove, Campbelltown, Kellyville, Manly, Bondi, North Sydney, Mosman, Newtown and Waterloo. Support has come from people of different ages. Even one of my 80-year-old volunteers tells me that she looks forward to having somewhere different to go for a drink. New South Wales business representatives—including the Property Council of Australia, the Chamber of Commerce, Westfield, the Hotel, Motel and Accommodation Association, and the Chair of the Committee for Sydney—support reform. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating has publicly expressed his support for reform.

The Sydney Morning Herald particularly and the Daily Telegraph promoted reforms in numerous articles that engaged so many across the State. I commend the New South Wales Government and the Minister for responding to this strong community campaign and putting the public interest before vested interest. The long-awaited Government Liquor Bill and its cognate bills, the Miscellaneous Acts (Casino, Liquor and Gaming) Amendment Bill and the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority Bill, will provide an entirely new process for liquor licensing that is less restrictive, less complex, and more flexible and more affordable. It will also provide for new harm minimisation measures. The bills reduce the 23 restrictive and prescriptive licence categories to six flexible categories.

The proposed hotel licence will have the supply and sale of liquor as the primary purpose and, like my Liquor Amendment (Small Bars and Restaurants) Bill, there is a general bar licence that will apply to small boutique bars. As in my proposed small bars licence, fees for general bar licences will be $500. Although this amount has been specified only in the draft regulation, I welcome the Minister's public announcement that this will be the cost. Small bars currently have to apply for hotel licences, which cost $2,000, followed by an annual fee of $2,500, and require expensive and time-consuming social impact assessments, which can cost around $50,000. Alternatively small bars must apply for nightclub licences, which cost from $10,000 to $60,000. But small bars are neither nightclubs nor hotels.

The new cost of $500 will encourage entrepreneurs to open venues that contribute to the diversity and vibrancy of our night economy. Unlike my small bars bill, the proposed general bar licence does not create a patron limit. My bill included a patron limit because it was specifically designed to allow small bars to enter the market in the existing complex, restrictive and expensive New South Wales system, and to ensure that my small bars licence was distinct from other categories. The 120-patron limit was taken from the Western Australian small bars category. However, the Liquor Bill provides a system that small bars will be able to access. In Melbourne cheaper, more flexible licences encouraged the boutique night economy to flourish without a patron limit, and I support this provision in the bill.

For venues that have other activities such as food service or entertainment as the primary purpose, the bill proposes an on-premises licence. Business purposes will be set out in licences, and for an administration cost licensees can apply to serve alcohol while the primary business activity is not taking place. Like my small bars and restaurants bill, this will allow restaurants to serve liquor without meals, abolishing the expensive and restrictive dine-or-drink authority. While I support this new provision, I note that the authority can put conditions on licensees, including the number of drinkers allowed. I ask the Minister to make it clear in his reply that there is no intention for these authorities to reflect the dine-or-drink restrictions, which only allowed restaurants to serve alcohol without food to 30 per cent of customers, thus preventing them from becoming small bars.

I support the new fee structure for the granting of licences, particularly general bar licences and on-premises licences, which will allow smaller, lower-impact venues to enter the market. The fees, however, will be set out in the yet-to-be-finalised regulations, so there are no guarantees. I ask the Minister to assure the House that the Government intends to charge fees that encourage competition. Larger venues, however, may be the only ones able to afford the proposed fees of $2,000 and $3,000 to extend trading hours beyond midnight. Residents and police consistently report that larger venues cause greater impact on local amenity, and I recommend that the Government take this into consideration while finalising the regulations.

I welcome the decision not to extend standard trading hours for Sundays. However, I note that Kings Cross and Oxford Street, Darlinghurst, are already saturated by large, 24-hour premises, and can have extended trading on Sunday nights. In densely populated inner-city areas such as the Sydney electorate, large numbers of residents live in close proximity to licensed premises, and residents can be severely affected by commercial activities that operate across such a wide range of hours. For example, 20,000 people live within a five-minute walk from the Oxford Street precinct. Police from inner-city commands regularly report that a significant proportion of crime is alcohol related and concentrated late at night or early in the morning and on weekends. Indeed, this is what the Minister for Police and I recently witnessed on our walkaround in Oxford Street. I share community concern about the link between extended hours trading, and crime and antisocial behaviour.

Proposed standard trading hours should be reduced because 5.00 a.m. to midnight has significant potential to create impacts for residents. Standard hours should allow for operating times that are unlikely to affect residents. Beyond that, hours should reflect the likely impact of a business and its proximity on residents. I note that Queensland Premier Anna Bligh recently announced that opening hours would be cut back to 10.00 a.m. I strongly recommend that the new authority created by the legislation consider cumulative impacts of late-night trading venues when assessing applications for extended trading, and I support applying the new community impact assessment to extended trading applications.

I recommend that the bill increase the role of local government in extended trading. Councils are close to communities and know the complex issues surrounding clashes between residents and venues. Councils deal with local development applications, distressed residents and vandalised streetscapes, and are best placed to know whether extended trading hours will create impacts. I have concerns that the community impact assessment will apply to general bar licences, which do not have take-away liquor or gaming machines, and they have been the criteria for the application of existing social impact statements.

I welcome the Minister's statement that there will be different processes for low-impact applications and that measures to incorporate assessments within the planning process are being considered. The Minister also says that applicants will focus on consultation with the local community. However, the devil will be in the detail, as provisions in the bill are similar to provisions in the current Liquor Act 1982, which has been a major barrier of entry for entrepreneurs trying to set up smaller, boutique-style bars. The tabled draft regulations do not provide details on the process, although today the Minister told me that what we are looking at here is the framework and that the regulations will provide that detail.

Other licences without gaming machines or take-away liquor—including nightclubs that will have on-premises licences with the stated activity of public entertainment—will have to provide a community impact assessment only if the new Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority requests it. I believe the authority should have the same discretion for general bar licences, rather than making community impact assessments automatic. Small bars, where the responsible service of alcohol can be better managed and that are not in residential areas, should not have an unnecessary burden. Small bars will be subject to a rigorous development application process through local government, including public exhibition and consultation with the whole community, who have the opportunity to address committees, with police and planners participating in the assessment process.

When the Government reviews the bill, I ask that the review include assessment of the legislation to establish whether it successfully stimulated new and smaller entrants into the market, and if it has not, that barriers be identified and addressed. In fact, I recommend that the review be brought forward to two years instead of five because this is new territory and we cannot be sure what will happen. An open, transparent and public review relatively early on would allow us to identify problems and address them appropriately.

I strongly support the proposed licensing process, which creates a new Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority to replace the Liquor Licensing Court's functions of assessing and determining applications. The Licensing Court is formal, intimidating and time consuming, and both applicants and residents find the current situation onerous. The authority will be an independent, expert body, and this will make the process more accessible to all stakeholders.

Similarly, I welcome the proposed complaints process whereby the Director of Liquor and Gaming looks after complaints and has authority to impose conditions on licensees, but with decisions reviewable by the authority to ensure independence. I share community support for maintaining existing provisions for the responsible service of alcohol, harm minimisation, and increased maximum fines for venues repeatedly caught supplying alcohol to minors and intoxicated patrons. Police often report that current fines are easily absorbed by large venues and fail to act as a disincentive.

The director will be able to order lockouts, which will allow patrons already inside a venue to stay but will prevent the entry of new patrons. I really welcome this new power, which will address people queuing and lingering in entertainment precincts, which is a significant problem in my electorate, particularly in Oxford Street and George Street, and in Haymarket. It is where alcohol-fuelled violence and homophobia occur.

Powers to ban products that promote irresponsible, rapid, excessive drinking or that encourage underage drinking are also welcome. I support the requirements for venues to keep incident registers if they have extended trading hours. I also believe that licensees should keep records of incidents during all operating hours to ensure that proprietors and police are able to investigate crime and make connections between antisocial and criminal behaviour and licensed premises. Incident registers are a useful mechanism to help identify and prevent alcohol-related harm, and provide data that can help policing strategies such as the Alcohol Linking Project, which links crime and antisocial behaviour incidents to the licensed premises where perpetrators have been served.

While the bill allows for the creation of binding liquor accords with two or more parties, one of which must be a licensee, through the approval of the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Liquor and Gaming, I recommend that liquor accords be mandatory, as was supported by the 2003 Alcohol Summit. Local liquor accords have significant harm minimisation potential, with strategies based on local conditions designed to increase safety and reduce crime and antisocial behaviour, and I ask that the Government make them mandatory.

I welcome the Minister's announcement of an additional $10.8 million to help inspectors implement and enforce the bill, including support for liquor accords, working with police and industry education programs. Today I met with licensees from the Oxford Street precinct, including members of the Australian Hotels Association, as part of the Surry Hills liquor accord, and they raised with me a number of concerns about the bill. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Some licensees say that the bill is being pushed through too quickly. However, we have been waiting a long time for reform—indeed, since the Olympics—with community consultation occurring almost two years ago. Some licensees are concerned that the 120-patron limit proposed by my small bars bill—which I note the Australian Hotels Association publicly opposed at the time—has been removed. As I have already said, my bill included a patron limit to allow for small bars in the existing complex, restrictive and expensive system, and in Melbourne low costs and flexible conditions successfully supported boutique-style small bars.

The Australian Hotels Association has argued that alcohol-related crime in Melbourne has increased. However, I note that the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee in the Parliament of Victoria stated in a 2006 report on an inquiry into strategies to reduce harmful alcohol that it does not consider the laws to be "overly liberal". The committee instead suggested that harm minimisation and responsible service of alcohol provisions be strengthened. Recently I called for a street-safe task force similar to that in Victoria, where 50 officers patrol inner-city entertainment zones, enforce licensing conditions, and respond to crime and antisocial behaviour.

Some of the licensees I spoke to today said that the legislation should ensure that restaurants maintain the primary purpose test. The primary purpose test has been a major barrier to restaurants becoming bars, and the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority will be able to impose conditions on restaurants that serve alcohol without food. Licensees also tell me that they do not want residents to be a part of liquor accords. However, cooperation between residents and venue operators will encourage good neighbour policies, and I support this provision.

The city's draft late-night trading development control plan, which will go to council next week, aims to balance the role of late-night premises in Sydney's economic and social life with the rights of residents to reasonable amenity. Low-impact wine bars and hole-in-the-wall establishments will be encouraged. I understand that other councils are looking at similar provisions. The City of Sydney is conducting a number of projects to bring life back to the central business district, including measures to activate our laneways. We are working with international urbanist Jan Gehl to create spaces that people want to spend time in, and consulting residents, community groups, businesses, and cultural representatives and other stakeholders to develop a long-term vision for 2030. Small bars are an important part of these projects, for which there is widespread community support from residential, cultural and business communities.

The proposed changes will be good for tourism, live music and hospitality. Residents and councils across the State are looking for a new night economy for New South Wales—one that is diverse and in line with other cities, such as Melbourne, Auckland, Paris, Florence, San Francisco and Shanghai, to name just a few. I agree with the thousands of Raise the Bar members that New South Wales has waited too long for this, and the time for change is now. Through strong harm-minimisation measures, adequate police resources, and laws that encourage competition in the market, we can have a responsible, safe and vibrant night economy that is unique to Sydney and New South Wales. I congratulate the Minister and commend the bill to the House.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [11.07 p.m.]: I support the Liquor Bill 2007 and cognate bills, and note the comments of the member for Upper Hunter and other members who have contributed to the debate. The object of the Liquor Bill 2007 is to replace the Liquor Act 1982 with new legislation that simplifies the existing liquor licensing system and regulatory framework, and enhances liquor harm-minimisation measures. The proposed Act gives effect to a number of key reforms arising out of the New South Wales Summit on Alcohol Abuse and the national competition policy review of liquor licensing legislation.

The explanatory note to the bill states that one of the principal reforms made by the bill is to rationalise the types of liquor licences that may be granted by the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority, including a new type of hotel licence, that is, a general bar licence, for bars that will not be able to sell take-away liquor or have gaming machines. That certainly will affect towns and cities such as Orange, Mudgee and Wellington in that it will give them a whole lot more opportunity. I note that most of those towns have a number of small wine bars, as well as large and small hotels. The legislation will certainly make it a lot easier for the small bars whose proprietors do not want them to be regarded as restaurants or hotels. I believe this aspect of the bill will ensure a lot more sensible and civilised alcohol consumption in country towns and cities, not just in the city areas. I refer specifically to clause 34, which refers to small-scale producers of beer, spirits, et cetera in non-metropolitan areas. It reads:

(1) A producer/wholesaler licence authorises the licensee, if the licensee carries on business as a small-scale producer of beer, spirits, cider, perry—

I checked what "perry" was, and I understand it is made from the fermentation of pears—

or mead:

(c) to sell or supply the licensee's product, at any time on the licensed premises, to customers and intending customers for consumption while on the licensed premises, but only for the purposes of tasting, and

I refer this to the Minister for clarification. The New South Wales liquor reform fact sheet says, in part:

A new on-premises licence will allow greater flexibility for a variety of businesses wishing to serve alcohol—subject to responsible service of alcohol laws and restrictions on inappropriate venues.

The fact sheet goes on to say:

Boutique brewers and distillers outside of metropolitan areas can charge for tastings and make cellar door sales to the public to promote regional small business and tourism.

I would like the Minister to clarify the ability of the small brewer to actually sell alcohol to take away and not only for tastings as referred to in the bill. I had a meeting with Peter Shiells and Gary Leonard, who established the Mudgee Brewing Company in July this year, when I visited their premises. The Mudgee Brewing Company makes two very good beers, one principally from barley and the other from wheat, with 4.7 per cent alcohol content, and nicely packaged. They currently have a complication: they can sell only to other licensed premises. Their beer is selling quite well at a lot of the restaurants and hotels in Mudgee. People can walk through the brewery, they can view demonstrations of how the beer is made, but they cannot have tastings. The brewery proprietors cannot charge for tastings or allow people to taste their beer. I welcome the changes to the liquor legislation—and that is one reason I am supporting it tonight—but I would like the Minister to clarify the problem faced by the Mudgee Brewing Company. I will share with the House a little bit more of my meeting with Peter Shiells and Gary Leonard of the Mudgee Brewing Company. I received an email from them outlining some of their history, and it reads:

The idea of starting the Mudgee Brewing Company began about five years ago between two friends over a Christmas drink. Since that time a great deal of time, money and effort has gone into setting up the brewery. This has involved many facets, including the sourcing and importing of all the brewery equipment, finding the correct location and the establishment of the brewery. Not to mention the financial and project planning of the approval process. Currently the brewery is producing beer for sale to other retail liquor outlets around Mudgee, both on tap at some local hotels and clubs and for sale through bottle shops. The brewery is also open for viewing and talks to the public each weekend. This has proved very popular with hundreds of locals and tourists visiting since we opened our doors 8 weeks ago.

As I mentioned, that was roughly in July this year. The email goes on:

We have also received great support from everyone in Mudgee, both businesses and individuals. They all see the brewery as an important part of the tourist culture in Mudgee.

Most members in the House tonight would be aware of how famous Mudgee is and its great reputation as a winegrowing area. It would enhance the tourist opportunities of Mudgee if they could not only taste the fine wines around Mudgee and Gulgong but also taste the fine beer from the Mudgee Brewing Company. The email continues:

Our greatest challenge at the moment is the ability to sell our product directly to the public. You can imagine the disappointment of visitors to the brewery when we tell them that they cannot taste or buy our beer and our frustration that when they leave we lose their custom. We hold a Brewers licence that allows us to produce beer and sell it to other licensed outlets. We are not allowed to sell it in any form to visitors or even to offer them tastings, we cannot even give it away. This obviously has a significant effect on their experience at the brewery and our ability to run a successful business.

Peter Shiells and Gary Leonard go on to say that they are hoping to extend the brewery and plan to open a restaurant, which would further enhance their tourist opportunities. They mention that the building was previously a wool store and that when you enter it you can still smell some of the lanoline and wool within that building. I am sure that the smell of the hops being brewed will eventually overtake that smell. As part of their plans to open a restaurant they have applied to the Federal Government for a grant as a tourist project. I will read a press release dated Friday 6 July 2007 from the former member for Gwydir, John Anderson:

Federal Member for Gwydir, John Anderson, today announced that the Mudgee Brewing Company will receive $97,170 under the Australian Tourism Development Program. Mudgee Brewing Company is expanding from wholesaling boutique beers (in kegs and bottles) to include a café/restaurant and bar/tasting facilities on site. The grant will be used to complete Stage 2 of the business plan to fit out the café/restaurant and bar, and for construction of the kitchen and office facilities and renovation of the buildings façade.

Mr Anderson said:

I congratulate Mudgee Brewing Company for securing this funding. It is a tribute to their hard work and will bring considerable benefits to our local area The funding is part of the Australian government's commitment to keeping our economy strong. By attracting more tourists to our local area, we can help boost the local economy by creating extra jobs and providing more opportunities for small business.

Peter Shiells and Gary Leonard are certainly contributing to Mudgee. The changes to the Liquor Act through the Liquor Bill 2007 will certainly enhance the opportunities to make their small business very successful. If we can get clarification that they will be able to sell beer to take away, as well as have tastings, that will further enhance their business opportunities. Mudgee is a town of some 8,000 people; it is going ahead. Wine and agricultural industries, as well as a number of coalmines that strengthen its economy, surround Mudgee. I appreciate anything we can do for towns in regional areas, especially towns such as Mudgee in my electorate. I look forward both to the Minister's comments and to the Minister agreeing that the Mudgee Brewing Company will be able to sell its beer, as well as have tastings within the brewery.

Mr PAUL PEARCE (Coogee) [11.18 p.m.]: I support the Liquor Bill 2007 and the cognate bills. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on having brought forward a bill that recognises the concerns of the community in a number of areas, as well as reflecting the concerns identified in the Alcohol Summit. Naturally the success of the bill will be in its application and the details contained in complementary regulations. The principles contained in the bill are worthy of support. Like other members, I made a submission to the Department of Gaming and Racing in response to the consultation draft some 18 months ago.

In that submission I identified a number of shortcomings and matters of real concern. In particular, those aspects of the draft bill were likely to be counterproductive to the stated objectives contained in section 3 of the consultation draft in addressing binge drinking. I cited the problems experienced by my community as a result of the Coogee Palace Hotel targeting 18- to 30-year-old drinkers, with a particular emphasis on the 18 to 24 years age group in its large mid-level bar area. It is broadly recognised that the 18 to 24 years age group is most likely to indulge in dangerous binge drinking and that 18- to 24-year-old males are most likely to become involved in alcohol-related street offences and violence. It was with concern, therefore, that the consultation draft contained proposals that could have resulted in extended standard trading hours for hotels, including restricted days. Whilst I am sure the Australian Hotels Association, with its narrow concern for members' profits, supported this proposition, the Government, to its credit, has rejected the proposal.

Clause 12 retains reduced standard hours for Sunday, and clause 14 (3) continues restricted trading on the designated restricted days. Another concern I raised about the consultation draft was the abolition of the Liquor Administration Board and the restrictions proposed on third party appeal rights. Whilst the bill abolishes the Liquor Administration Board, the accompanying bills create a separate body that will exercise a range of functions similar in effect to the board. Whi