- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 11 May 2004
National Competition Policy Liquor Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 10 of 41
| Next Item »
Page: 8661
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 5 May.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.57 p.m.]: Throughout the extremely long lead-up to debate on this national competition policy amending legislation the New South Wales Labor Government has engaged in an ongoing campaign of scaremongering, myth-making and misleading personal revelations, the aim being to score political points by pretending that it had no choice but to deregulate some of the State's most vulnerable industries. Rather than the Government actually doing its job, for which it receives national competition policy payments, it spread disinformation about as deregulation that was not necessary. As of last week the Government has changed its position yet again. It has split the bill, despite indicating earlier that there was no way that it could or would do so. However, there is now a separate bill that deals with liquor licensing amendments.
One wonders whether the new willingness to split the legislation has anything to do with additional crossbench—or double cross bench—support. The Opposition will watch with interest to see who has changed his or her position on the bill. Both Commonwealth financial penalty bills are knee-jerk reactions to something that Mr Carr has been expecting for 10 years. Last year's National Competition Council [NCC] recommendations should not have contained any surprises for the Government. Mr Carr would have expected them. However, in October 2003, when Mr Carr spoke out against the Commonwealth's acceptance of the recommendations, he showed considerable surprise that the National Competition Council recommended Treasurer Peter Costello withhold $51 million from New South Wales.
What a shock, Bob! It should not have been a shock to Bob because he signed off on the national competition policy in 1995, at the same time endorsing the arrangement that States would reform anti-competitive legislation unless it was shown that retaining restrictions to competition was in the public interest. That is a key part of the policy. The Labor Party seems to have forgotten that important detail in terms of the windfall of money it was to get. Earlier this month the Australian Labor Party's [ALP] Paul Lynch said:
Competition policy is a conspiracy against the ordinary people of New South Wales and really should just be ended.
They are the words of an ALP leftie. It was Bob Carr who signed off on the national competition policy on behalf of the people of New South Wales. It was not Nick Greiner, John Brogden or Kerry Chikarovski; it was Bob Carr. So when the leftie luminaries start pumping out the crocodile tears they are world-class wimps; they will say a lot elsewhere but when it comes time they will not do anything in the Parliament. It is like our friend who whispered his petition today because he was frightened of offending the Premier.
Mr Ian Cohen: Not like you with the dairy industry in this House.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will come to Mr Ian Cohen in a moment. He should stand in line; I will get around to him when we talk about lefties and pinkies. What did the honourable member say?
Mr Ian Cohen: Not like you and the dairy industry.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We supported deregulation of the dairy industry, although it was not part of the national competition policy.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Tony Catanzariti to order for the first time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is interesting that the Greens, who are friends of the Labor Party, are making comments. They are the mob that brought the Labor Party back to power. They criticise the Labor Party all the time but when it comes to voting they queue up to give their preferences to the Labor Party. As I said, Mr Carr signed up New South Wales for the national competition policy. So Mr Lynch is effectively saying that his leader, the Premier of New South Wales, is personally responsible for this conspiracy, which should be ended. Is that not a tad confusing for anyone who does not understand? This bloke should understand. I suspect that he does and that he was simply peddling the same silly, puerile political line that he always peddles. For example, when the Labor Party is in trouble on trains and health, caucus gives him permission to introduce a private member's constitution bill to change the oath of allegiance. That is what it is about.
The Hon. Kayee Griffin: If you don't like it, don't vote for it.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Interestingly, the people of New South Wales voted against it, as did the people of Australia, but that did not stop this Cabinet from bringing it in to shift the political focus. Labor members are about spin doctoring, rather than facing the facts and doing their job. And that is the key to this legislation. If they had done their job, their homework, rather than spin doctoring they would be in a better position. When we debate the next bill we will detail how inept the Government has been on this legislation. The original deadline for this reform was 2000. It was then extended to 2002, and there was a further extension to 2003. Of the 216 pieces of legislation that New South Wales had to reform, only 73 per cent had been reformed by last year's deadline. New South Wales knew that the suspension of competition payments was coming. It knew it had to meet the obligations to which Mr Carr agreed seven years ago or prove that it was not in the public interest to do so.
The National Competition Policy Liquor Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill will deregulate the sale of alcohol in this State. The Opposition argues that there are alternatives to a blanket deregulation of liquor and other industries, even with the Government's shoddy attempts to sweeten the blow with additional measures such as those announced last week. This bill will abolish the needs test. The New South Wales Opposition does not support this move; we believe it is not in the public interest. The legislation proposes to substitute the needs test with a social impact assessment. We do not believe that this will provide adequate scope for preventing irresponsible liquor sales. One of the additional measures announced last week was to correct a drafting oversight; the other two relate to social impact assessments and licence applications.
By the amendments, the social impact assessment process will be able to be commenced before a licence application goes to the Licensing Court. This court will have to wait for any approvals until the Liquor Administration Board approves a social impact assessment relating to that application. What the Government fails to make clear, however, is that the board need only approve the assessment's completion, not ratify the recommendations of the assessment, as the recommendations are not legally binding. Last week's additional measures also included an amendment requiring the advertising of social impact assessments. The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt said in her second reading speech last week:
This is one area of competition policy that has actually lead to a vastly improved set of regulatory arrangements.
I cannot find the logic in the Hon. Carmel Tebbutt's argument. The bill she was discussing will deregulate liquor sales in New South Wales, regardless of additional measures. How can she say that this would be a vast improvement on the current arrangement? The social impact assessment processes for the liquor industry that are being suggested do not adequately address the current needs criteria of the industry. Frankly, it is as simple as that. Given her portfolio, I thought the Minister could have been a little more circumspect in her comments. Furthermore, the real detail of the content of social impact assessments is being left to another, yet to be introduced regulation. The regulation should have been included in the bill for us to see what is being discussed.
Perhaps Mr Carr's Government has forgotten that New South Wales held a Summit on Alcohol Abuse last year. The Opposition certainly has not forgotten. We remember well the words of one of the keynote speakers, Professor Sally Caswell of the Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation at Massey University in New Zealand. Professor Caswell spoke specifically about evidence of a direct link between the density of outlets, the hours and days of sale of alcohol, and increased alcohol use. Her message was simple: the more available alcohol is, the higher the consumption level. On one hand the Government ran an Alcohol Summit, carefully orchestrated with its people to get the result it wanted; on the other hand the Government has introduced legislation that completely undermines that summit. Indeed, the legislation was introduced by a Minister who has a portfolio relating to an area of social responsibility.
As I said, Bob Carr signed up to the national competition policy that has led to these payments—$12 million relating to liquor—being withheld, after three warnings. He signed the NCC agreement in full knowledge of its requirements and provisions. So he must either pay the fine or lobby to exclude alcohol from the agreement by meeting the public I The Premier's hypocrisy on this issue simply beggars belief, He tells the media and New South Wales Parliament that he wants robust regulation of liquor sales in New South Wales, yet at the first sign of losing these competition payments—in fact, the third sign—he scrambles to draw up legislation that will clearly deregulate the sale of alcohol throughout the State. In 2003 the Carr Government matched the Liberal-National Coalition's policy of opposition to the deregulation of liquor stores and the abolition of the needs test in respect of an application for new liquor stores. We still hold firm on our commitment even though we did not win government; the Labor Party won government on the back of that commitment, yet it has changed its mind.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Just like local government.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Just like local government, just like transport, just like almost everything in this State at the moment. However, this bill clearly indicates that the Government has broken its election commitment, because it abolishes the needs test and therefore deregulates the liquor store industry. We are talking about $12 million, which is less than half of what the Carr Government spends on its personal publicity. If it were to tighten up this legislation, not deregulate, and reduce its mainline use of media monitoring and its own Stasi, it would have that $12 million. It is a pretty simple equation. The Government says it is essential that we have this money, but one can think of 30, 40 or 50 decisions the Carr Government has made this year that could cover the $12 million.
New South Wales had many years to put a public interest case to the NCC and say why its existing liquor legislation should be retained, but it did not. States such as Queensland and Victoria, whose legislation previously contained similar needs-test arrangements, have sensibly protected the public interest in their States, but in this State legislation is invariably a knee-jerk reaction by an inept Government playing catch up. The other States are well ahead. Daily we look over the border into Queensland with envy to see how a Labor government can run a State compared with what we experience in New South Wales. Of course, it would be even better if that State did not have a Labor government.
The Hon. Rick Colless: That is where all the investors are going.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is where all the investors are going. The Premier's latest addition to this bill is a public interest test to determine that a liquor licence will have no social detriment. With such vague and evasive terms, I have little faith that this version of a public interest test will be effective. Once again, it seems that laziness has dictated the course of action, or lack thereof, of the Premier and his Government. As even the NCC recently made abundantly clear, it was the New South Wales Government's responsibility to address this issue properly, and to put forward the correct arguments.
The last submission made by the Premier in 2002, defending the existing liquor regulation, was flawed, incomplete and ineffective. Nevertheless, quite a long time has passed since then, during which time this Government could have made further submissions to the National Competition Council—as it was invited to by way of correspondence from the Federal Treasurer. If this irresponsible and flawed legislation were to be agreed to, it would have many negative social impacts, including proliferation of alcohol sales. It is within the Government's power, within the crossbenchers' power, and within the Opposition's power to stop this.
The Opposition will not stand by idly while the Premier bulldozes this legislation through, breaking election promises and threatening small businesses as he goes. With a view to encouraging responsible liquor sales throughout the State and acting in the best possible interests of the citizens of New South Wales, the Opposition cannot support the National Competition Policy Liquor Amendments (Commonwealth Financial Penalties) Bill. The Opposition does not feel that all avenues to resolve this matter have been adequately covered. The New South Wales Government has options to avoid competition penalties on all affected industries, whether that be by proving the public interest of existing regulations, or making fresh appeals to Council of Australian Government [COAG] meetings—a specially convened meeting if necessary—or seeking a change to the COAG agreement on competition policy rules.
The Carr Government expects this House to approve this damaging bill to avoid losing competition payments of $12 million. Yet the same Government has created a crisis in this State through appalling budgetary mismanagement. New South Wales has little or nothing to show for Sydney Labor's nine years of record revenue stream. Rather, it has infrastructure that is falling apart, schools that do not have airconditioning, patients being operated on in hospitals by torchlight, and trains that do not run on time or do not run at all. The whole State is in crisis, yet the Premier tries to make an issue out of this matter.
The Government should be aware that the words "Commonwealth Financial Penalties" in the bill's title are misleading. There are no penalties. We are discussing competition payments or dividends, not penalties. If the Government put as much time into managing the State, doing its homework, and addressing issues of national competition as it puts into providing disinformation and spin doctoring in the title of a bill, the State would be a damn sight better off. The Premier must revisit this case and work with the National Competition Council and COAG to find a solution to it that is in the net public interest. The Opposition does not support the bill.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.16 p.m.]: My position on this bill is a bit of a plague on both houses. The fundamental problem with this Government is that it is so debt averse that it is obsessed with paying off debt. Everyone who understands the most basic principles of economics knows that in order to get rich one borrows money and then invests it or uses it to get a better return than the borrowing. In other words, one uses money to get to one's objectives, while managing debt prudently. Generally, if there is asset backing for the debt there is nothing wrong with having debt. If someone in New South Wales tried to save to buy a house they would never be able to buy because the price of the House would go up faster than they can save.
The Government has had record revenues. Its actual revenues have always been higher than its budgeted revenue, so it has been able to spend freely. It has not had a serious economic crisis, yet it is always short of money. It is allowing infrastructure to run down. It is cannibalising some schools to keep other schools going. The health system is in crisis—there are inquiries into that—and there is a huge problem with the education system. The trains are a joke. They have not been maintained, they are in a shambles, they are falling off the rails. The Government is not managing. The fundamental problem is that it has not borrowed and invested prudently in infrastructure that has asset backing. It is doing stopgap work on roads rather than developing the north-west sector rail, and so on.
The Government then finds itself with a budget crisis whose origin is interesting. The National Competition Council [NCC] was set up to get rid of inefficiencies within large government utilities. The NCC seems to have a life of its own and has ploughed ahead with its economic dogma, without any contact with reality. Faced with having to pay for non-compliance with the economic dogma in areas where the NCC said the Government should act—the liquor industry, the poultry meat industry, the dentistry, optometry and pharmacy professions, and farm debt mediation—the Government devised its own silly economic dogma.
The Government packaged these four areas together and, I believe, turned Parliament into a circus in order to express its displeasure at the national competition policy fines. It then linked this issue with the formula for Federal funding of States—which favours the smaller populated and industrialised States, and disfavours larger States, such as New South Wales. There is a good case for the renegotiation of the Federal funding formula. The State Government, for all its flaws and its absurd aversion to debt—even to borrowing for the replacement or improvement of infrastructure—does have a reasonable complaint about the deal that New South Wales gets from the Federal Government.
The Government has packaged these four areas and put them into a mini-budget in order to draw attention to the dogmatic and impractical consequences of the economic theory implemented by the NCC. In the budget the Government rewards the implementation of the policy. The Government has packaged these four areas and turned Parliament into a circus to gain maximum dramatic effect. I am concerned that the Government has used Parliament for this purpose, however worthy its aim in pointing out the absurdity of the National Competition Council's dogma.
I will refer to the dogma of the NCC and some of its consequences. The national competition policy is like any other economic theory or regulatory regime: one formula for everything. The tenet that competition will fix everything is wrong. If a person says, "God will fix everything", some people would nod sagely and say, "Very true" and others would say, "That may be, but here on earth we have noticed some failures". If a person says, "Competition will fix everything", he is likely to be hailed as an economic sage and rewarded with his own column in a daily newspaper. The proposition that competition will fix everything is absurd. Competition spreads the dollars to suit the producers and the buyers and sellers; it does not necessarily benefit consumers. Generally, unrestricted competition results in the big fish eating the little fish, and the big fish then forming a monopoly or oligopoly.
In Australia it is often the case that when the competition genie is let out of the bottle one or two players dominate the market. That has certainly been the case in the retail area and in media ownership. Although some slight restraints have been placed on media ownership, they are not as strict as many of us would like. If the media companies cannot compete on the world stage, so be it. Subsidising one big player to compete on the world stage, which then puts all its profits into the Bahamas, is scarcely beneficial to the Australian taxpayer—even if it does give us the sort of warm glow we get when Ian Thorpe wins a race. Rather than competition benefiting consumers, the end result is a monopoly or an oligopoly of a few companies that control the market and do not compete with each other. A price level is set so that all the companies in the market do well and the consumer loses. That has been the case in the media and in the insurance and banking sectors.
The bill originally had four components: the liquor industry, the poultry meat industry, the optometry, dentistry and pharmacy professions, and farm debt mediation. Poultry was removed from the bill and the NCC issued a press release criticising its removal, saying that poultry growers are paid a set price and the consumer pays the difference. In the poultry meat industry a group of subcontractors, many of whom used to work for poultry companies, buy day-old chicks from the big companies and later sell the birds back to them. It is cheaper for the big companies to let the subcontractors complete this stage, whilst they have control at both ends.
The companies used to undertake this work but, because it is an unpleasant job that involves long hours, they subcontracted it to poultry growers, who work smarter and harder. By using subcontractors, the net cost to the big poultry producers was reduced. The big poultry producers, who control supply and sale, were able to squeeze the margins of the little people. The oligopoly squeezed the small producers. A guaranteed price was set to protect the little people so they had some hope of making a reasonable income when dealing with an oligopoly. It was a classic example of the failure of economic theory, where the little people are squeezed and go broke so the big companies controlling the market can save a few cents per bird.
There is a huge difference in the margin between the payment to growers and the price paid by consumers. I believe the growers receive 50¢ per bird, and consumers pay $5. In other words, there is a large gap, with the big companies making the money. That is a mockery of the economic theory of competition. In a press release the NCC said the guaranteed price is inflicted on consumers. If the large poultry companies could grow the birds for cheaper than 50¢ per bird they would do so. That is the ultimate test. The subcontractors work much more cheaply than it would cost the companies to set up operations and pay employees to do the work. It is a very competitive industry, yet the NCC wants it deregulated. That shows the inflexibility of the dogma displayed by the NCC in the face of oligopolies controlling a market.
I gave that example to show the degree to which economic dogma has overtaken reality. The Government, after a great deal of fuss—which I believe the Government was happy to create—has split the bill into two: the liquor component in one bill, and the other components in a bill yet to come before Parliament. The deregulation of the liquor industry has received the most attention in the press and the most lobbying on behalf of vested interests, presumably because a great deal of money is involved. The maximum amount New South Wales will be penalised for not deregulating the sale of liquor is $12.7 million. That sum needs to be balanced with the extra cost to the community of making alcohol more easily available. As to the loss of revenue, in a letter dated 18 December the Premier referred to the number of intensive care beds that could be bought for that amount of money. That is a specious argument because alcohol abuse is a drain on the health care budget.
Having transfused 120 litres of blood to a patient who was dying from alcoholic liver failure—who then vomited most of the blood over me—I know exactly what alcohol abuse does to people, and their need for intensive care beds. In that case, the patient was in intensive care for six weeks and two days in a ward. He then walked out of the hospital, across the road to a pub and came back vomiting blood again. The consultant said to me, "Is that the same bloke?" And I said, "Yes, sir, it is." I asked whether I should transfuse the patient with water and the specialist agreed. That is what happened and the fellow died. That demonstrates alcohol abuse treatment and how useful intensive care beds are if we do not have intelligent alcohol management. Despite the fact that it will cost $12.7 million to cut the number of liquor outlets, a reduction would be a very good outcome.
Kowtowing to the liquor industry is a worry. The NCC deserves credit because its press release dated 17 February states that if the Government wishes to restrict liquor outlets on social policy grounds it can do so, and that it is not required to have more liquor outlets provided it restricts them in the interests of consumers and not in the interests of other liquor outlets. Concessions have been provided in this legislation in that social impact assessments and licence applications are to be lodged separately. Social impact assessments must be advertised in statewide newspapers as well as local newspapers, which will allow peak community bodies to make submissions. The Liquor Administration Board will also apply a new test in making a decision to grant a licence. The old needs test—that is, whether we need another outlet in the area—will be replaced by a test to establish whether the granting of a licence will detrimentally affect the local community or the broader community. The test will be applied in the light of the social impact assessment. Unfortunately, as with the needs test, the effectiveness of this latest test will depend on how it is applied. One could argue that the strict application of the needs test would result in fewer outlets. However, if it were applied in the spirit intended—that is, to minimise harm to the local community—it could be beneficial.
The legislation contains another significant provision that the Minister did not mention in his contribution dealing with the sale of alcohol at service stations and general stores. Section 49C (2) of the Liquor Act 1982, the principal Act, provides that a proprietor can have an off-licence or retail facility attached to a service station and a general store. The needs test applies in that a licensing court must be satisfied that no other takeaway liquor service is reasonably available in the neighbourhood. That situation occurs in the country where there is no bottle shop or pub. A case in point is the general store and service station on the Princes Highway at Bawley Point, just south of Ulladulla. Schedule 1 amends section 49C (2) so that service stations will be prevented from being granted an off-licence in any circumstance.
This raises a number of questions: Will that mean that service stations that have a licence will not have that licence renewed, and when is a service station not a service station? The definition provides that it must be a business operated primarily for the refuelling of motor vehicles. It is debatable whether the Bawley Point business is operated primarily as a service station or primarily as a general store. Most passing trade involves the sale of petrol, but the locals buy petrol, groceries and liquor, and all purchases are paid for at the one checkout area. The point becomes important because a general store may still have an off-licence, but premises defined as a service station cannot have such a licence. I hope the Minister will clarify that point in his reply.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: The Bawley Point facility is clearly a general store.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: The Opposition has an opinion, but we await the Minister's opinion. A number of studies have been conducted in comparable States of America on alcohol availability, particularly focusing on legislation, regulation, price and taxes. They demonstrate that the cheaper alcohol the more it is consumed, which follows the laws of economics. The studies found also that the convenience and availability of alcohol impacts on consumption and the social harm it causes both directly and indirectly—that is, alcohol-related illness and accidents resulting from impairment caused by alcohol consumption, such as road accidents and crimes of violence. Clearly, given my interest in social policy, I would like to restrict the number of alcohol outlets.
Hopefully that will be the result of this legislation, although that is not guaranteed. The NCC policy must include limitations. The Prime Minister has washed his hands and has said that the Premiers have agreed to the process. Mr Carr has taken the same approach and said that there is nothing he can do. The NCC appears to have ensured that governments cannot control the bureaucracy, and that is worrying. It is the position of the Australian Democrats that the strengthening of monopolies, duopolies or oligopolies against more general competition must be addressed. The case I presented involving the poultry industry is a good example of what can happen, as is our experience with deregulation of the dairy industry. Governments should consider their actions more rationally. On balance, this legislation is probably helpful. However, it is worrying that this circus occurred because of concerns raised about the payment regime imposed by the NCC.
The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [3.37 p.m.]: I speak on the national competition policy amending legislation in relation to liquor outlets. It is extraordinary that we are only now debating this legislation, which has been amended many times over the past few months as the Government has tried to work out who to blame for its inadequacy. It is now blaming the Howard Government despite the fact that the Council of Australian Governments [COAG] created the National Competition Council [NCC] in 1985. As other honourable members have pointed out, its establishment was supported by Labor Premiers and the Labor Federal Government. Other States have made moves to work with the NCC's policy, but the Carr Labor Government has delayed and is now pointing the finger of blame at other people and governments.
If the Government does not like the legislation, why does it not take it back to COAG? It should raise the issues again and put the legislation on hold until COAG has addressed the matter properly. I find it farcical that the Carr Government held the Alcohol Summit last year and, despite its good work and recommendations, has now introduced legislation that will increase the number of liquor outlets. The Alcohol Summit is very much on my mind because the Standing Committee on Social Issues is dealing with two alcohol-related matters referred to it by this House¯the Inebriates Act and the recent riot at Redfern. I am sure it will become clear that alcohol had a part to play in the riot and that it is causing a great deal of suffering in the community. Every day many people in our community must deal with the impact of alcohol. It is frightening that we are now debating legislation that will lead to an increase in the number of liquor outlets and in the availability of alcohol. Despite that, the Carr Government is pointing the finger of blame elsewhere. It is a bit rich that a number of Labor members of both this place and the other place are hiding behind a 1985 policy introduced by a Labor Prime Minister.
I note that the honourable member for Port Stephens in the other place, with a foot on either side of the fence, on the one hand said that he opposed the legislation and on the other hand voted for it. He had the opportunity to vote against the legislation at its first reading, and he did not. He continued to tell the community of Port Stephens how dreadful it was. Indeed, the honourable member for Port Stephens was the one who convened an alcohol summit in Port Stephens, at which he heard time and again about the effects of alcohol. He then told the people of Port Stephens how much he opposed the legislation. Using the resources of the good taxpayers of New South Wales, the honourable member wrote a letter to the constituents of Port Stephens under the heading "Help keep alcohol off our local streets". The letter stated:
This [the legislation] will mean that petrol stations, fruit shops, bakeries—almost any shop could sell beer and spirits.
Not only will alcohol be more readily available, but it will make it easier for children to buy liquor and increase local crime rates.
That's why I'm fighting with Bob Carr to protect our local families.
That does not sound like someone who would vote for this legislation! The honourable member for Port Stephens enclosed with the letter a document headed "A message from John Bartlett MP—Help keep alcohol off our streets—Sign the petition overleaf". That sounds like someone who would fight tooth and nail not to have this legislation, someone who would stand up for the residents of Port Stephens, and certainly someone who would stand up for increased regulation and guidelines on liquor. But that is not the case. This same person voted for this legislation in the other place.
Some sort of change takes over some people when they drive down the F3. As they cross the Hawkesbury River, suddenly the words they uttered in their electorate change; when they get to Macquarie Street they become Bob Carr's men. I believe the constituents of Port Stephens deserve an explanation for the double standards of their local member. I, for one, envisage huge problems arising from this legislation. We have seen evidence of that time and again. The comments of the Police Association of New South Wales are also relevant. The association notes recommendation 2.8 from the Alcohol Summit, which provided:
Control of the economic and physical availability of alcohol can be effective in preventing alcohol misuse and harms in specific situations. Further consideration of these measures in NSW should be undertaken to ensure that existing research, investigation and strategies are optimised and additional effective strategies are not overlooked.
In my view that points to the need to not increase alcohol outlets, to take some effective action, for the Government to take a stand, and for local members to represent their constituents in good faith. Local members should certainly not hide behind the Carr Government and point the finger, given that the Government has had the power to do something about introducing this legislation long before now.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.44 p.m.]: The underlying theme of this legislation is the discredited economic ideology embodied in national competition policy. Despite the hollow protests of the New South Wales Labor Government against this process, it must not be forgotten that the national competition policy review process was foisted upon the people of Australia by the Keating Labor Government. Naturally, it has been enthusiastically embraced by the Howard Government, which shares the Labor Party's fetish for the damaging cult of economic rationalism. The Greens have fundamental objections to the principles of national competition policy and the agenda that underlies it. I borrow from the statement of my Western Australian Greens colleagues, who put it succinctly:
National Competition Policy subordinates the public interest and the environment to the values of the marketplace and is therefore deeply flawed. The economy derives its sustenance from the environment and exists to serve the public interest, not the other way round.
In practice, National Competition Policy has strengthened the position of big business at the expense of small business, farmers and community organisations generally, especially in regional Australia. Major reform is needed to restore the public interest, equity and environment issues to at least the same importance as financial returns and competition.
The national competition policy process has spun out of control. A reform agenda that originally targeted publicly owned industries, particularly utilities, has now run amok, wreaking havoc on parts of the economy that were never meant to fall within its scope. Thank goodness there are only four more years of this madness left before the program expires in 2007-08. The fact that the bill was split in two in the Legislative Assembly, and the debacle over poultry, pharmacy, optometry and dentistry, demonstrates just how contentious this issue is. However, the Government must be congratulated on finally splitting the bill and presenting the liquor provisions in a separate bill. Why on earth this was not done in the first place remains a mystery.
I turn now to the specifics of the bill. The Premier has made alcohol policy one of his signature issues. Last year's Alcohol Summit was a welcome opportunity to look seriously at this complex issue. The Greens welcome the start the Government has made on implementation of the Summit's recommendations, and we look forward to some of its more complex and challenging proposals being tackled. The Greens are pleased that the self-regulatory code for alcohol advertising, originating in part from the Summit, was developed and implemented in April this year. We share the serious concerns that many people and organisations raised about the success of the self-regulation model, and we will watch closely how effectively the industry enforces new codes, including the following:
[Advertising] must not depict the consumption or presence of alcoholic beverages as a cause of, or contributing to the achievement of personal, business, social, sporting, sexual or other success.
Adults appearing in advertisements must be over 25 years of age and be clearly depicted as adults.
A number of advertisements that would not conform with these new codes spring to mind, and I am not alone in observing with interest how effectively the voluntary code will rein in the relentless promotion of alcohol. Not only has the Premier backed down on an independent, enforceable code on alcohol advertising, but he has taken a strong stand in the interests of existing liquor outlets. In recent months the Premier has generated a lot of sound and fury about the possibility of expanding liquor outlets. It is interesting to speculate whether the Premier's passion has anything to do with the more than $590,000 donated to the Australian Labor Party by liquor and hospitality outlets over the last three years.
No-one disputes that excessive availability of alcohol can be linked to increasing social problems, but this in itself is not sufficient reason to shut down the distribution of alcohol. Prohibition simply does not work, whether in relation to alcohol or any other drug. The system of alcohol distribution as it currently stands is increasingly dominated by a few large players. It is the same familiar pattern we have seen in one industry after another—large corporations buy into a sector and aggressively undercut independent competitors. Once those competitors are out of business, the large operators are in a position to set their own prices, and they go on to do so to their own advantage. Any reform of the liquor licensing system must act against this tendency, not reinforce it.
The bill as it currently stands will do very little to break the virtual monopoly enjoyed by the existing pubs and clubs industry. It will allow large supermarkets and corporate chains, such as Woolworths and Coles, into the takeaway liquor market, but will achieve little else. The Greens believe that the fundamental principle to be followed in the management of alcohol, as with other potentially harmful drugs, is harm minimisation. We advocate that this principle, rather than the ineffective and socially cataclysmic policy of prohibition, should underpin the system of alcohol distribution. Social research indicates that an increase in the number of liquor outlets corresponds directly to increased harm in the community. The implications of this research must underpin any deregulation of the market.
In practical terms harm minimisation means making sure that the damage to individuals who consume a drug and to the society that they live in is prevented or reduced. Measures such as refusing service to people who are drunk and strictly enforcing age limits are important elements of harm minimisation as it applies to the individual. These requirements are already in place and the Greens strongly support their ongoing enforcement and expansion. But applying harm minimisation principles to the wider society is more difficult. It is far more complex than simply limiting the authority to distribute alcohol to existing outlets or controlling the expansion of the alcohol market to supermarkets and large corporations; it requires many more considerations to be taken into account than the economic ideology of unrestricted competition.
The Greens consider that the liquor licensing system needs a robust and effective tool to assess the social impact of proposed licences. This would be a step forward in ensuring harm minimisation by specifying the social challenges faced by residents near the proposed outlet and quantifying the predicted impacts of that outlet on key social indicators. When the bill was first introduced into the Legislative Assembly in February the Greens flagged amendments to tighten up the loose social impact assessments proposed by the Government and to ensure that these assessments apply periodically to existing as well as proposed licences. This is an important point. If we recognise that each and every liquor outlet contributes to alcohol-related harm in the community, then surely any system of social impact assessment should apply to each and every outlet.
But even if we ignore the social impact, surely on the basis of fair competition and creating a level playing field all players within any given market should abide by the same regulations and conditions. Anything less would contradict competition policy. Yet by restricting the system of social impact assessments to new entrants in the market this is precisely what the bill does: the activities of existing pubs and clubs will be exempt from being subject to the social impact assessment system. The Government's claims that tougher social impact assessment processes have been incorporated into the bill are a joke. Under the guise of the social impact assessment it has created nothing less than another hoop for new entrants to jump through, restricting new entrants and protecting Labor's mates in the existing pubs and clubs industry.
It is no wonder that the industry is broadly supportive of the social impact assessment process proposed by the Government. Under the bill industry does not need to do anything, while new competitors will be required to jump high hurdles. The Greens welcome the introduction of a social impact assessment system. The detail of what a social impact assessment must include, as outlined in the draft regulations, is positive. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the way in which the system will be implemented. If the Government were serious about implementing a system that genuinely assesses the social impacts of additional liquor outlets, it would apply that system across the board to all outlets and not limit it to the small fraction of the market that will make up the new entrants.
Furthermore, it would include an increased capacity for the social welfare sector to better engage in the assessment process. Bodies such as the Council for Social Service of New South Wales and the multitude of community organisations providing the front-line services linked to the negative impacts of alcohol are already overstretched, yet there is nothing in the bill to support the additional workload that any social impact assessment process may impose upon them. I return to the point that the bill will strengthen the position of big business at the expense of small business, community organisations and the broader community. It pays lip-service to social impact assessment, opens up the market to big supermarket chains, and protects the existing pubs and clubs industry.
I turn to liquor licensing and the responsible service of alcohol. Earlier this year the Minister for Gaming and Racing assured the crossbench that the Government was about to embark upon a comprehensive process of reviewing the Liquor Act. Currently, under the Act staff serving alcohol at bars must be trained in the responsible service of alcohol. This requirement is soon to be extended to door bouncers. Such training for door staff is well overdue and hopefully will help to defuse volatile and sometimes violent confrontations at pubs and clubs that occur all too frequently. The Greens would like to see this training extended to all staff selling alcohol, including outlets such as takeaway bottle shops and supermarkets. Such an amendment would no doubt be outside the leave of the bill, but if we are to avoid school kids working at Woolworths selling alcohol to fellow students, any review of the Liquor Act should certainly include this provision.
The Greens also hope that as part of that review we will see an overhaul of the inappropriate model of judicial rather than administrative decision making that underpins liquor licensing in this State. Despite the impression given by its name, the Liquor Administration Board—the body that approves liquor and gaming machine licences—is actually a judicial body consisting of a panel of four magistrates. The board considers applications based on a judicial or legal model whose focus is on the rights of the applicant and on formal process. This is nothing more than an anachronism, a throwback to the days when a whole range of licences were determined by a special class of licensing magistrate. It is an out-of-date model that gives control of the system to lawyers, thereby adding expense and complication. It also means that the scope of consideration of the court is always limited.
These days it is routine for licences to be granted by administrative rather than judicial bodies, with avenues for appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. Under this model legal interference is minimised and, if a licence is refused, the grounds of appeal must be based on failures in the decision-making process. The agencies assessing the merits of a proposal are accountable through the Minister to this Parliament and to the public¯a flawed system but more appropriate than the accountability applying to judges where independence is of the highest importance. The administrative model applies to almost all other categories of licence, including highly sensitive licences such as water and air pollution permits. There is no reason why it should not apply to liquor and gaming machine licences. I call upon the Government to consider these issues closely when considering further amendments to the Liquor Act, and I look forward to further action in this area.
The Premier has described this legislation as "all the Prime Minister's fault", and has howled that there is nothing he can do. Such assertions are a contemptible and empty show. It is true that national competition policy appears to be driving itself and that the Federal and State governments are blaming each other as it careers off course. But the Premier cannot walk away from responsibility for a system created by his Federal Labor colleagues and controlled by a Council of Australian Governments of which he is the one remaining original member. National competition policy continues to be a disaster in the making. During its reign sectors such as retail have become concentrated in the hands of a few large companies, small businesses have closed, the major banks have merged and international consortia have taken over key government contracts. The market advantages of big business have been boosted and foreign ownership of key industries has increased.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:33:19 : Update this page