Suspension of standing and sessional orders agreed to.

Debate resumed from 23 September.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby - Leader of the Opposition) [11.04 a.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the bill. Finally, after 3½ years in government and with no more than 20 sitting days left in the Fifty-first Parliament, the Carr Government is attempting to bring the State’s liquor laws as they apply to restaurants into the latter half of the twentieth century. We are about to enter the twenty-first century. The Government has dragged its feet and waited until the last moment to introduce this reform. The politics of this issue are simple: the people of Australia are sick of governments telling them when they can eat, when they can drink, whether they have to stand up, whether they have to sit down, whether 30 per cent can stand in a corner or whether 70 per cent have to sit.

This kind of nonsense - this lifestyle policing - has to stop. The Opposition will not oppose the legislation because, presumably, it is the best the Government can do six months before the State election. This is an incremental step, albeit belated, in the Government getting out of lifestyle policing, but it still has some way to go. On 6 April I indicated the Opposition’s support for the relaxation of the draconian liquor laws that ban restaurants from serving liquor without meals. I indicated that a coalition government would move to get rid of that anomaly. I indicated to the Restaurant and Catering Association annual dinner that the coalition would overcome the ridiculous anomaly that has beset that industry.

Those laws made life difficult for restaurateurs and resulted in a number of patrons having a drink
Page 7996
somewhere else, which may have led to a meal, and may have meant more employment in the restaurant and catering industry. On 6 April I said that Sydney was fast losing business to Melbourne, where restaurants reserve a quarter of their tables for patrons who want liquor without meals. In Queensland restaurants reserve 20 per cent of their tables and in South Australia they are not limited. This legislation is not about splitting the atom, it is not earth-shattering, untried, radical, social engineering. This legislation will bring New South Wales liquor laws in line with the laws of other States - some of which have been in operation for the past 10 to 15 years.

The Opposition will not block this legislation. It is a pity the Government has been under the thumb of the Australian Hotels Association and has not been prepared to do something about this earlier. It is a pity the AHA has the Government in such a stranglehold that it has not been prepared to bring changes before the House until now, when only 20 sitting days remain this session. The Minister for Gaming and Racing is familiar with the coalition’s arguments and its determination to see greater flexibility as far as the eating and drinking habits of Australians are concerned. He knows that the coalition wants to recognise the flexibility that consumers, customers and restaurant patrons demand.

This will not be the end of the world for the hotel or club industry, but it will make a lot of difference for those who run restaurants, the archetypal small business men and women who run restaurants around this State. They have been saying for years, "Give us the same opportunities that are available in other States, such as Victoria, Queensland and South Australia." We would not find in this Parliament, I would hope, anyone who would speak against these changes. I sincerely hope that no-one would be so under the thumb of other interest groups that they would oppose these changes, because these issues transcend politics. This is to do with government getting out of lifestyle policing.

The 6,000 restaurants in New South Wales employ more than 55,000 people. The position taken by honourable members on this side of the House, I am pleased to say, has forced the Government to adopt our position and bring this legislation before the House. That position is that people should be able to choose whether they want to have a drink first and then a meal, or have a meal first and then a drink. That decision should be left to the customer; it should not be a matter for regulation and policing by any State government instrumentality. The Opposition completely supports the liberalisation of drinking laws as they apply to restaurants.

This measure will be welcomed by the thousand or so people who attended the Darling Harbour dinner which I and the Minister for Gaming and Racing addressed in April. The Minister said that he would look at this matter soon - "soon" obviously meaning six months or so later. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of Jenny Lambert, who has worked tirelessly for Restaurant and Catering New South Wales, the association representing the restaurant industry, and the former president of the association, Mr Michael Fischer. They have ensured that members of Parliament have been kept abreast of the needs of the industry that they have so admirably represented. They have well represented the 6,000 restaurants of New South Wales over the past couple of years. I pay tribute to them for really bringing this issue to a head today in Parliament by ensuring that both the Government and the Opposition know what is happening in the restaurant industry.

One element of the package before the Parliament deserves particular comment: the proposal to remove lifestyle policing - a step that we on this side of the House applaud - and to replace it with a tax measure. The cash-strapped Carr Government is unable to resist the opportunity to slug restaurants, in this instance by up to $15,000 each, and thereby raise some $30 million in additional taxes to stem its worsening budget crisis. Why is it that this Government, which promised no new taxes and no tax increases, now imposes this fourteenth major charge increase, an impost that will be passed on to consumers? Why has the Government decided, in the dying days of this Parliament, to slug restaurants by an extra $30 million?

The idiocy of this Government charge indicates not only that these are the dying days of the Parliament but that they are the dying days of the Carr Government. The Government has been unable to read the message. It has received the message that the people and restaurants of this State want change, but why must it slug consumers by charging small restaurant owners $15,000 each so they can serve people a drink when they do not want a meal? This is just a money grab in the dying days of this cash-strapped Government.

Because the Opposition does not have the numbers in this Parliament to change this legislation, I reserve our right to change, at a later date, the provision that would slug restaurants up to $15,000. I put the Government on notice now. It has its hands
Page 7997
in the pockets of restaurant owners, saying, "Give us $30 million." The same Government is lining the pockets of some hotel owners who have established a futures market in poker machines doled out by the Government. It is ever keen to look after every single aspect of the hotel industry in New South Wales. Why would it do that, I wonder? When we have a police Minister who is a major hotel owner, and owns hotels in the Sydney central business district, we have a fairly clear answer as to why hotels get more attention from this Government than do restaurants.

The fact is that restaurants are run by ordinary people. Most of the 6,000 restaurants in this State are run as archetypal small businesses: the husband and wife, the family members, typical of the core staffing of these restaurants. These are the restaurants that are being slugged $15,000 each by a Government which a couple of weeks ago established a futures market for poker machines. Hoteliers are able to buy poker machines, not even take delivery of them, and on-sell those machines at a profit of $40,000. Hoteliers, in some instances, are getting $40,000 for poker machines that they have never taken delivery of, yet the restaurant owners are being slugged $15,000 for a licence. There are no poker machines in restaurants - yet! There is no sign of poker machines in restaurants, thank goodness.

The coalition will be talking further to Restaurant and Catering New South Wales, which represents the 6,000 restaurants and 55,000 employees in the restaurant industry throughout the State. We on this side of the House want to make sure that their interests are better served and their voice is better heard under a Collins-Armstrong government than they have been under the Carr Government. I conclude by saying that it is better late than never that we see in the dying days of this Government some changes to benefit the restaurant industry. We look forward to having more good news for the restaurant industry in the days leading up to the State election on 27 March next year.

Mr IEMMA (Hurstville) [11.18 a.m.]: I support the proposal put forward by the Government, I welcome the package that the Minister has put together, and I welcome the statements in support of them by the Premier. I want to deal with some of the regulatory aspects of this proposal. Restaurants will be required to apply for authority to serve alcohol in their venues. The grant of an application and the operation of such premises will be subject to a requirement that at least 70 per cent of seating must be allocated to diners at all times. That requirement compares favourably with the 25 per cent requirement that operates in Victoria. That answers some of the criticisms that this package does not go far enough. Simply put, it goes further than the Victorian scheme. Given criticisms that New South Wales is losing out to Victoria, I would have thought the benefits of this proposal are self-evident.

The premises must be operated and configured so that adequate seating is provided at tables or bar tables for all patrons admitted, whether they be drinkers or diners, so that restaurants do not become overcrowded bars for drinking. It is proposed, through regulations to be formulated under the Act, to prohibit inappropriate promotion or advertising by dine-or-drink venues, as well as inappropriate entertainment on these premises, that is inconsistent with the venue’s primary purpose of being a restaurant. That should be a sufficient safeguard and answer some of the concerns expressed about this package, especially by the Australian Hotels Association.

Important regulations will protect the excessive serving of alcohol to minors. The bill specifically provides that responsible adult requirements will apply to these venues after 10.00 p.m. each night. This is a sensible precaution. Minors will not be prohibited in these venues after 10.00 p.m. but they must be with a responsible adult if they are to remain on the premises. That is a fairly sensible requirement and a sensible balance between the interests of minors and the interests of these premises.

Finally, these licences will be subject to the applicable offences that apply to other liquor licences, including the supply of liquor to minors, intoxication and so on, together with appropriate offences, penalties and disciplinary measures to address non-compliance with the law. The package provides a good balance. Importantly, the proposals in the bill will not allow restaurants which are granted the new dine-or-drink authorities to have gaming machines or takeaway sales of liquor. That fundamental provision addresses the concerns expressed by those who have been critical of changing the law in that direction.

In the bill the Government has taken the opportunity to clarify the law relating to what are generally known as the stand-and-consume requirements of restaurants. The restaurant association and the industry have been seeking that clarification for a long time, and people such as Gay Bilson have strongly supported changing the ridiculous situation that has operated for some time. The Restaurant and Catering Association sought
Page 7998
clarification of these provisions to ensure that no breach or offence is committed if patrons, in normal and reasonable circumstances for a restaurant, move between tables with their drink, have a toast with their glass of wine while standing or stand with their drink at a function on the premises. I am pleased that the package finally clarifies the position.

The package does not answer all of the criticisms of those who have been pushing for change, but it goes further than what was wanted by the critics who are resisting change. The Government was in a difficult position, and the Minister has brought forward a reasonable, balanced package, given all the considerations. This package, which provides support not only for the wine industry, is only the beginning of reform of our liquor laws. The wine industry in New South Wales and, indeed, in Australia has built a strong international reputation, and will receive a boost from the steps taken in this package of proposals. I support additional promotion of our wine industry, and I support the package brought forward by the Minister.

Mr PHOTIOS (Ermington) [11.23 a.m.]: Today is the coalition’s finest hour on restaurant policy achievement. Together with my coalition colleagues, I am delighted to take credit for initiating the changes to the licensing arrangements for the restaurant and catering industry. Throughout this process the coalition has been determined to take the lead in the campaign for the restaurant and catering industry, despite opposition from other aspects of the industry. The coalition was prepared to take the lead when it was not popular for the Government to do so. In other words, the coalition said that it wanted a cosmopolitan restaurant industry. It wanted to get rid of the archaic regulatory regime that constrains and limits the vibrant, thriving industry that is vital to the future of New South Wales.

The coalition pleaded with the Government and the industry to reform the industry, and it made the first public commitment to reform the system. Therefore, the coalition, in partnership with the Government - on this occasion the Government is our junior partner; our mouthpiece, one might say - brought forward this legislation in the public interest and in the best interests of the restaurant and catering industry. As shadow minister for tourism I have had the good fortune to attend dozens of Restaurant and Catering Association functions. I am delighted to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of my good and close friends from the association. Recently, we learnt that Jenny Lambert, the chief executive officer, is retiring from her State role but not her national role with the association.

I place on the record our appreciation to Jenny Lambert for her great work with the industry. She is not only an industry leader but an industry reformer. It is a great tribute to Jenny and her stewardship of the association that she has been able to achieve so much in so little time. My good mate from Barnaby’s Restaurant in Parramatta, Michael Fischer, is also present in the gallery. He has led the restaurant and catering industry for some years. Recently he retired and was succeeded by my mate Peter Doyle. On behalf of the Parliament I express my gratitude to Michael Fischer for his leadership in achieving this landmark legislative reform which is critical to development of this industry.

I take this opportunity to wish Peter Doyle well. I know that he will continue in the footsteps of Michael Fischer. Of course, Peter Doyle is a gregarious and fairly earthy bon vivant; he has great grassroots appeal. With this legislation he will ensure that the restaurant industry continues to grow and be vibrant. The Opposition welcomes the legislation; indeed, it has taken, not immodestly, much credit for the legislation. However, it is concerned about certain aspects of the legislation. The bill before the House is a great tax rip-off. The Government is slugging the restaurant industry for $30 million because of the exorbitant fees imposed for licences to stand and consume liquor, to wine while dining.

In this bill the Government wants it both ways. It wants to reform the system and to slug the industry for more tax. That is unacceptable to the coalition. The Leader of the Opposition has been forthright in leading on this issue. Day and night he has been calling for, supporting and demanding reform. He was supporting the industry well before the Government even dreamed of doing so. The Leader of the Opposition was the first party leader in New South Wales to call publicly for the reform. In fact, he called for the reform before the Premier of the day. Last year at Darling Harbour I heard the rousing reception given to the Leader of the Opposition at the Restaurant and Catering Association awards night when he outlined the coalition position. On that occasion the coalition was certainly taking the lead in the public domain and the Minister for Gaming and Racing, for whom I have a great deal of respect, and the Government were caught wrong-footed.

The Opposition is deeply concerned about the licence fees. I want to focus particularly on fees affecting smaller restaurants, those that cater for fewer than 100 patrons. Honourable members will be aware that for restaurants or cafes with city premises that provide seating for more than 100 patrons the fee for one of the new licences will be
Page 7999
$15,000; the fee for premises catering for fewer than 100 patrons will be $10,000. For premises in non-metropolitan areas providing seating for more than 100 the fee will be $10,000, and for those with fewer than 100 seats the fee will be $5,000. Those fees will make the licences extremely expensive for smaller restaurants and cafes, particularly in non-metropolitan and rural areas.

A cafe that seats fewer than 100 and wants to serve some liquor will be asked to fork out $5,000. That proposed fee compares unfavourably with the fee in other States. For example, in Victoria the fee is about one-eighth of the proposed New South Wales fee, that is, an initial fee of roughly $750 with a $140 annual fee. Fees of that size are more manageable for small business. The fee structure proposed in this bill is a tax grab and it is anti small business. As someone who came to this Parliament with a background in small business - I am not a university graduate or one of the many lawyers in this place - I am gravely concerned that small businesses, cafes and restaurants will have to fork out $5,000 to the Carr Government before they will be able to sell drinks.

The proposal is good news for the bigger restaurants, those that attract the clientele who will quickly make the licence pay for itself. However, the $10,000 slug in the city and $5,000 slug in non-metropolitan regions are unacceptably high figures for small business. The Leader of the Opposition has highlighted that concern and had foreshadowed a review of the fees by a future coalition government. I am delighted to support the legislation and I commend the Minister for its introduction. Members of the coalition have played a prominent role in gathering bipartisan support for the bill. They are the puppet-masters and members of the Government are the puppets. It is fair to say that legislation originated with the coalition and the coalition then drove it forward.

I place on record my appreciation for the good work of my friend and colleague in another place Richard Bull. As shadow minister, he has worked hard with the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association, the Australian Hotels Association, the Registered Clubs Association and others in the industry to advance this proposal. Both the Leader of the Opposition and Richard Bull deserve great credit, as does the Minister for Gaming and Racing, the Hon. Richard Face. I am pleased to support this bipartisan legislation. I look forward to working with the industry to improve it.

Ms MEAGHER (Cabramatta) [11.33 a.m.]: I take this opportunity to indicate my support for the Liquor Amendment (Restaurants and Nightclubs) Bill and to make one or two brief comments about it. The days of Irish stew and the six o’clock swill in Australia are long gone. Regrettably, however, reform of the liquor laws in New South Wales have lagged behind. Recently I took time off from the campaign trail to have lunch with a friend in a restaurant. When we moved tables and I picked up my glass of wine to carry it to the next table I discovered I was in breach of the stand and consume principle contained in the New South Wales Liquor Act. Anyone who stands to toast the host on the auspicious occasion of a birthday party in a restaurant is in breach of the New South Wales Liquor Act. That is an indication of how archaic the New South Wales liquor laws in New South Wales have become. It is also an indication of the need for change.

The archaic nature of the State’s liquor laws has obviously meant that the development of Sydney social venues has been constrained. Sydney has been voted the world’s favourite city, but the best chance for those who want to have a drink in Sydney on a Sunday afternoon is a registered club or hotel. While both of those venues provide important recreational opportunities for Sydneysiders, they are not everyone’s cup of tea. That means that the options for socialising have become somewhat constrained. That is particularly important in relation to the development of social venues in western Sydney and regional New South Wales. In western Sydney the choice of places in which to have an afternoon drink with a work colleague or friend is limited to the large western Sydney style club or the pub. Large clubs like Panthers, Mounties, Cabra-Vale and others are pivotal to the social fabric of western Sydney, but many people choose not to mix in those environments.

Pubs are an important part of Australia’s social fabric, but in many western Sydney pubs on Wednesday and Saturday afternoons anyone wanting a drink has to put up not only with football scores and TAB results but, more often than not, with lingerie waitresses. While a pub may be the choice of some, it may not be a desirable venue for women to socialise. Not only has the law constrained the type of social venues that have developed in particular areas, it has also constrained the social patterns of various people. As women have increasingly moved into the work force and their disposable income has increased, they have established friendships outside their homes as well as with work colleagues and they may choose to enjoy a drink after work and to socialise on weekends. Their options should extend beyond the club and pub environment. The restaurant
Page 8000
environment would be a preferable alternative for many in that position. I welcome the changes proposed in the legislation.

The comments by members of the coalition about the charges to be imposed are little more than argy-bargy. To suggest the fees are a tax is incorrect. They are one-off fees that will be subsumed by the increased profits of the organisations that choose to purchase the new licences. I am pleased to support this amending bill because it will improve the social opportunities for those who live outside the Sydney central business district. It will improve social opportunities for those who live in Sydney’s west and in regional areas. It will improve the social opportunities for women and those who may prefer to socialise in an environment other than a club or a pub. I support the bill.

Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [11.38 a.m.]: I support the Liquor Amendment (Restaurants and Nightclubs) Bill. Honourable members would be aware that Coffs Harbour attracts a great many tourists and holiday-makers. Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Ballina and the Tweed area attract many international visitors who are used to being able to sit down in a restaurant and have a quiet drink. When they visit the north coast they are unable to do that. I commend the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Peter Collins, for forcing the Government to adopt the new approach that is proposed in the bill. The Government, unfortunately, has not had the intestinal fortitude to reform the entire administration of the liquor industry in New South Wales.

The House knows what needs to be done in relation to vineyards and vignerons. The Government has set up committees to examine that matter, but unfortunately nothing has yet been done. It is pleasing that the Minister has acted in regard to restaurants. I am sure that the majority of people in Coffs Harbour will welcome this legislation with open arms, although there may be a whinge from small clubs and pubs. As the honourable member for Cabramatta said, people who wish to have a drink during a business meeting in town on Friday or Saturday nights often find that they are restricted to clubs or pubs. Coffs Harbour has some wonderful pubs but they are not the kind of place one goes to for a quiet drink on a Friday night. They become somewhat rowdy and raucous, and that is even more so during holiday periods. It is tremendous that people will be given the option of having a quiet drink without having to put up with the noise of poker machines and general bar noise.

I am somewhat concerned about the licence fees. Many of the people who run small restaurants in Coffs Harbour do so because of their lifestyle; they do not do so to earn an income. Many of those restaurants would take more than 12 months to recover a $5,000 fee. A $5,000 fee could hurt many of the restaurants in regional areas. I encourage the Minister to give consideration to a fee system based on the number of chairs available. In that way restaurateurs would be able to obtaining a return on the fee. Some restaurants in Coffs Harbour have the capacity to cater for 120 people but need to accommodate that number only during the Christmas break and other peak holiday periods. Because of the proliferation of restaurants in the area, for the remainder of the year they would be 50-seat or 60-seat restaurants.

My question is whether they should be licensed as venues that seat more than 100 people or as venues that seat less than 100 people? They may be classified as large venues for only a small part of the year. I ask the Minister to address that issue, because there must be some flexibility. Those restaurants should be given an opportunity to pay a lesser fee. It would be fairer if those restaurants could be licensed in some other way than by means of a flat fee. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Collins. I commend the Minister for taking the lead shown by the Leader of the Opposition. I know the Minister would have been pressured, perhaps more so by the pubs than the clubs, not to introduce this legislation. However, the pubs have done reasonably out of with poker machines and other parts of the liquor laws. The Minister is to be applauded for ignoring that pressure. I urge all honourable members to support this legislation.

Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [11.43 a.m.]: I support this legislation. The people from the industry who are in the gallery today will appreciate that it is common knowledge that for seven years the previous Government did absolutely nothing to reform the liquor laws. It is all very well for members opposite to take the high ground, but had it not been for the Minister for Gaming and Racing, who has led the reform of the liquor industry, the industry would be in more danger than it is in today. Small clubs and the hotel industry generally have benefited from what the Minister has achieved, and restaurants will now benefit. The claims made by members of the Opposition about how good they have been to the liquor industry, particularly the restaurateurs, are an absolute joke. They forgot about these people for seven years and did absolutely nothing. Now they are telling us about all they have done. The Minister and the Government have led the way in the reform of the liquor industry and I commend them for it.

Page 8001

Mr R. W. TURNER (Orange) [11.44 a.m.]: I totally support the Liquor Amendment (Restaurants and Nightclubs) Bill. Previous speakers in the debate have placed concerns on the record about the licence fees, and country people are certainly concerned about that matter. Many small restaurants in towns with fewer than 1,000 people do not have the turnover to absorb that fee but want to be able to take advantage of the proposals in the bill. I am unaware whether that fee could be lowered after the legislation is enacted, but time will tell how many restaurants with seating for fewer than 100 consider it worthwhile paying up to $5,000.

The legislation has been needed for a long time, not only in large towns such as Orange but in the smaller towns around Orange and further west that do not have outlets where one can purchase liquor without purchasing a meal. All of us have been to a bar or a restaurant, have had to pretend to be having a meal and have ended up with a plate of chips or a few sausage rolls merely to comply with the outdated laws. That will now end and people will now be able to go into a small restaurant at 5 o’clock and obtain a drink.

People in the bush travel many miles to attend functions or meetings. A function might start at 7.00 p.m. and people might start arriving at 5.00 p.m., so what do they do? Because of the company they are in or because they do not know which pubs of the town will make them feel welcome, often they will not want to go into a pub. All of us have walked into small pubs, been stared down by the locals, and made to feel uncomfortable. This legislation will overcome that. It will mean that people will be able to leave a town feeling much better about it. Not everyone wants alcoholic drinks. In a group of four someone may want a decent cup of coffee, and that can be hard to find in a pub. This legislation will give the restaurants the flexibility they need. Restaurants will not have to go through the charade they used to indulge in. People will be able to go into restaurants and have a drink without having to buy a meal.

The 30 per cent limitation may cause some confusion between people simply having a drink and those who are having a pre-dinner drink. I am sure all of those matters will be sorted out. As another member said earlier, people will be able to go into restaurants and have a quiet drink without the incessant noise of poker machines that one hears in the major pubs and clubs. I hope no pressure will be brought to bear in the future to have poker machines and gaming machines in restaurants. I will strongly oppose any moves to put gaming machines in restaurants merely because they have liquor licences. Many people do not want gaming machines around them all the time. A few months ago I was in Canberra with a few friends.

Dr Refshauge: Having a drink?

Mr R. W. TURNER: We did, as a matter of fact. Our wives went shopping, so we decided to have a drink. We wandered into a nice little restaurant and inquired whether we could have a drink without having a meal. The restaurateur looked at us rather oddly and said, "Why not?" The realisation then dawned on me that we came from the archaic State of New South Wales and that was why we had asked the question.

I support this bill, which will bring New South Wales into line with all other States and with most civilised countries. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to travel through Europe are aware that liquor is freely available there, and I did not notice any adverse effects of that. I did not see people becoming drunk and making nuisances of themselves in the streets merely because liquor was available in small cafes and restaurants. This bill brings New South Wales into line with the rest of Australia and the rest of the world. I have much pleasure in supporting it.

Mr O’FARRELL (Northcott) [11.50 a.m.]: I support the bill. Most of my constituents and any reasonable person who lives in a city of this size anywhere in the world would support legislation such as this because it seeks to match expectations for leisure and entertainment. Whether the bill has been introduced by the coalition or the Government, at the end of the day it will serve the interests of consumers very well, particularly when one considers the event that will be held here in two years. I have three small concerns about this legislation. First, I share concerns expressed by other Opposition members about licence fees. Clearly, this Government is making another tax grab. I welcome the commitment made by the Leader of the Opposition to review the level of fees in the future.

Second, I am concerned that the legislation does not restrict the sale of alcohol to people who are seated. I understand that the new regulations will not change the character of a restaurant such as the Bayswater Brasserie. However, the position of other establishments is different. Last evening I was at Darcy’s. If Darcy’s were to decide that 30 per cent of its patrons were to be either seated -

Mr McBride: How many main courses did you have?

Page 8002

Mr O’FARRELL: I had two entrees, and I recommend the potato gnocchi with pesto. If Darcy’s were to decide to install a bar the character of the restaurant would be changed. Whilst I recognise that restaurants will have an individual choice, I am concerned that a relaxation of restrictions on standing and drinking in restaurants will change the nature of restaurants to an undesirable degree. My third concern relates to the enforcement of this legislation. I ask the Minister who will be responsible for determining whether 30 per cent of patrons are seated or standing. What will be the practical enforcement of this legislation?

Mr Face: The courts will make a determination.

Mr O’FARRELL: For a matter to get to the courts there will have been an infringement of the legislation and someone will have lodged a complaint. I ask whether there will be extra police officers or licensing officers in order to enforce the new guidelines. As members of the Government and the Parliament we need to be sure that we do not introduce unenforceable guidelines.

Mr FACE (Charlestown - Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [11.53 a.m.], in reply: I thank the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Ermington, the honourable member for Hurstville, the honourable member for Cabramatta, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, the honourable member for Orange, the honourable member for Londonderry and the honourable member for Northcott for their contributions to this debate. Several matters have led to this legislation and the bill is part of a package. I have taken on board the comments made by the honourable member for Londonderry. The coalition had a green paper on this subject and it had seven years to do something about the liquor laws. It is the Labor Government that is making this reform.

This bill does not propose total deregulation, as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. Many people are appalled that the Leader of the Opposition insists on using Victoria as a model. The Victorian model had many flaws, it sent many people broke and it was ill conceived. This legislation is not ill conceived. At the time of the 1987 Victorian legislation restaurants accounted for 4½ per cent of the total liquor consumption. That figure increased to and has now stood at 6 per cent for a long while. I do not expect the position in this State to be different from that. The Leader of the Opposition was wrong in saying that there were 6,000 liquor licences in New South Wales. There are 3,000 liquor licences, and there are bring-your-own and other licences.

The Government has come a long way with the Restaurant and Catering Association. The Government was working on this legislation long before the Leader of the Opposition made a decision in April this year. Work on this bill started in the latter part of last year, and, as I said, it is part of a total package of reforms. We have come a long way from the days of the late Ken Orth, to whom I pay tribute. Michael Fischer, Jenny Lambert and Peter Doyle Jnr have played responsible roles in the legislation before the House today. I do not intend to speak at length on the matter of fees. If coalition members consider themselves to be economic managers yet advocate following the Victorian model - under which everything, including goodwill, was given away for nothing - they are absolutely crazy. The fee is not an impost; it was negotiated and it is accepted by industry.

The Restaurant and Catering Association stated by way of media release that there is no doubt that the association in its full support for the Government’s original proposal was involved in a lengthy decision-making process. Finally, I pay tribute to officers in my department who have done tremendous work on this legislation. I thank Julie Allomes, Peter Cox and others and I thank my senior policy adviser, David Williams. Without their assistance, good sense and ability to get legislation before the Parliament the passage of this legislation would not have been made so easy.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.