- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 26 September 2007
Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill 2007
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 2 of 47
| Next Item »
Page: 2336
Agreement in Principle
Debate resumed from 25 September 2007.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [10.00 a.m.]: Whilst we are waiting for the shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing to officially reply on behalf of the Coalition, I would like to make a contribution to this debate. The object of the Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill 2007 is to extend the trading hours of hotels on certain days during the 2007 Rugby World Cup, and to enable the trading hours of hotels to be extended during any period prescribed by the regulations, being a period that coincides with the holding of a special event of regional, State, national or international significance.
The extended hotel trading hours in relation to the 2007 Rugby World Cup are until 1.00 a.m. on the mornings following Saturday 6 and Sunday 7 October 2007—hotels are normally required to close at midnight on Saturdays and at 10.00 p.m. on Sundays—and from 5.00 a.m. on the morning of Sunday 7, Sunday 14 and Sunday 21 October 2007. Hotels normally cannot open until 10.00 a.m. on a Sunday. These extended trading hours coincide with the times when some of the final matches of the Rugby World Cup will be played.
In the case of the mornings of Sunday 7 October and Monday 8 October, which is the anticipated finishing time of the matches being played at that time, the 1.00 a.m. closing time will, if the relevant match is still in progress because of extra time or some other reason, be extended until the completion of the match. However, extended trading past 1.00 a.m. will apply only if the hotel is actually showing live coverage of the match to its patrons. The extended hotel trading permitted by the proposed Act, including any period prescribed by the regulations in relation to a special event, will apply only to the sale or supply of liquor for consumption in hotels.
As I said, the bill applies only to special events. Whilst I do not lead on behalf of the Coalition and I expect the shadow Minister to clearly state our case in more expanded terms, these special events that are attracted to New South Wales and our cities are important and it is essential that government gets it right. I reflect briefly on two major events that were held last year when the city of Sydney was caught very much unaware. There were traffic jams and gridlock, and I know that many hospitality venues were caught short.
I am concerned that there may be implications from the bill. I certainly would be keen for the Parliamentary Secretary at the table, the member for Miranda, to clarify in his response the powers of the Minister in relation to the bill. I would be very concerned, as I think others would be, that the bill would give the Minister carte blanche to sign off on any agreement at any time to extend trading hours for what the Minister deems to be a special event. The bill has other implications, which I am sure the shadow Minister will expand upon in his contribution.
Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [10.05 a.m.]: I am delighted to lead for the Opposition on the Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill 2007, and I thank the member for Wagga Wagga for keeping the fires going for the time being. At the outset I indicate that the Opposition wholeheartedly supports the opportunity for hotels to have extended hours to afford telecasts of the Rugby World Cup rugby union tournament, which is underway in France at the moment. Indeed, there are only a few days in question; they are identified in bill. Some of those days involve telecasts which would screen a match commencing at 1.00 a.m., and on other days matches would commence at 5.00 a.m. In relation to the former, I can readily see that it would be good policy to extend hotel trading hours, firstly so that patrons can view the game, and secondly so that hoteliers do not have any trouble with disgruntled patrons being asked to interrupt their enjoyment of the Rugby World Cup and then the patrons perhaps spilling onto the streets and causing trouble.
However, I have some reservations about who would get out of bed at 4.30 a.m. to go to a hotel to watch a rugby match—unless, of course, it is a final match and Australia is participating. If that is the case, I will be up at 4.30 a.m. with them! That would be a good outcome indeed. I am a little distressed at the way in which the bill has come forward. I have a significant reservation, and indeed foreshadow that if the bill remains intact and the Government is hell-bent on pursuing it in that form, the Opposition will oppose it in the lower House and will seek leave in the other place to move an amendment.
The issue I refer to arises out of the part of the bill which seeks to give the Minister open-ended powers into the future to select any special event of regional, State or national significance and to by gazette extended hotel trading hours without reference to Parliament. Having said that, I see some logic in the bill's provisions, providing we can have a proper debate and we can consider the issue in the fullness of time. Indeed, a large liquor bill is to come before the Parliament shortly, and this is the appropriate place to include such a provision and subject it to general debate.
The Government approached the Opposition, firstly by phone—and I thank the Minister for phoning me the night before the introduction of the bill, that is, last Monday night—and we were presented on Tuesday morning with a memorandum, rather than a copy of the bill, by Mr Phillip Kelly—and I appreciate the reason for that. At no stage were either the Minister or Mr Kelly able to tell me that the bill also contained the blanket provision allowing the Minister, at any time in the future, to gazette extended trading hours for any special event the Minister may decide. I discovered this an hour or so after I had been given the memorandum.
It seems that by using the Rugby World Cup as a smokescreen, the Government is now trying to slip into the bill a major provision which refers not only to these few days of the Rugby World Cup but also to any day in the future that the Minister deems to be a special event and therefore deems it appropriate to extend hotel trading hours. This is not the bill in which that provision should be included. If the Government really wants to deal properly with public policy, this is not correct approach.
The Rugby World Cup currently underway in France was planned some four years ago—at least during the last time this House sat before rising in June this year. It was very clear on what days and at what times events or pool games would be held, when the quarter-finals and semi-finals would be held, when the final would be on, and whether the winner of pool A played the winner of pool B, et cetera. All the details were clearly identified for everyone to know, particularly the Government, and that was the case well before the Parliament last sat. So, to turn up here on Tuesday morning with a sudden and urgent bill requiring the suspension of standing orders so that it can pass through both Houses this week to provide for extended trading hours for hotels for the duration of the Rugby World Cup demonstrates to me that the Government is not aware of what are major events.
The Government has not had proper consultation with the industry. I know that for many months before today the industry certainly has been seeking the Government's assistance to operate extended trading hours during the Rugby World Cup—for many, many months. So, that is not an excuse. What has the Government been doing all this time? It has been doing nothing. It has been sitting on its hands and all of a sudden the Rugby World Cup is upon us. Someone in the Minister's office—perhaps the Minister himself, who knows—suddenly has realised that the change has to happen this week otherwise the Government has made a mess administratively of the requirement to put before the House this bill to extend trading hours.
I would have thought that was bad enough, but with the cooperation of the Opposition this bill would have passed through both Houses very quickly and the industry then would have had at least some time—I would hope sufficient time—to organise staffing and all of the other aspects, for example, to organise public transport, to fit in as well as possible with the proposed extended hours. At least that would have been possible, but now the Government has included this blanket power of the Minister to declare a special event on any future day. Even by pretending that between today and the conclusion of debate on the liquor bill in a few months' time a special day might arise so that such blanket power is necessary in case of a major event of international or national significance, is the Government trying to say that it does not know what sporting events of international significance have been scheduled on the world program?
Everyone in the entire world knows, but the New South Wales Government, under current arrangements and the current Minister, does not know. The Government is worried that an event might suddenly spring up for which it is not ready and this extended power is needed to declare summarily a special event. What a joke! Is the Government really going to press this argument in debate? Is it really going to make this the salient point of this bill? If so, I am sorry to say this is seriously amateur hour in both the department and in the Minister's office in the New South Wales Government.
To conclude, I reaffirm that the Opposition is not in any way suggesting that the Rugby World Cup should not or would not enjoy the privilege of extended trading hours in hotels so that New South Wales patrons can view those fixtures. However, it is abhorrent that the Government, under the good will of the Rugby World Cup, has tried to squeeze into this bill this blanket change of policy outside the liquor bill. Of course, that bill should have been here for debate last year as we all know but, of course, government members were a bit lily-livered just prior to the election and all sorts of reasons were found as to why we ran out of time. I understand the liquor bill will be before this House shortly. Surely the Government by its own hand should amend this bill, remove this blanket provision to extend trading hours and make this special events bill specific to the Rugby World Cup. Let us all agree to that and then let us debate the broader issue of these blanket powers when the liquor bill comes before this House. That would be a proper way to do business; this bill is not.
This also is an attempt at trickery. It is an attempt to trick the Parliament by using the good will of the Rugby World Cup to extend the policy area and to give the Minister these unfettered powers. As I have said, we ought to be able to consider these powers more properly with decent discussion and the appropriate time is when the liquor bill comes before the House. This very sudden presentation of a bill to go through all stages, with the suspension of standing orders, to get to the other place so that it can be passed this week is not the way to introduce a major policy change. As far as I am concerned, it is on the Government's head that it has produced a bill of this nature and it risks the outcome. It is in the Government's hands. It drafted the bill and presented it to the Parliament. We did not do any of that. As far as the Rugby World Cup is concerned, we approve the proposal to extend trading hours. As far as this sudden change of policy that has been snuck into this bill under cover of Rugby World Cup, no, we do not agree. That is an outrageous breach of the trust and good will that surrounds the Rugby World Cup.
Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [10.16 a.m.]: I did not believe that the Opposition would—
Mr George Souris: Where is the Minister?
Mr ALAN ASHTON: I would not raise that, George. You dropped in late. We gave the member for Wagga Wagga a chance to make the first speech.
Mr George Souris: We will give him another few minutes.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: The Minister will drop in, I am sure, but I am speaking to the bill because I did not believe the Opposition would find the matter of special events to be so controversial. I understand the passion of the member for Upper Hunter for rugby union. I share that passion equally for Australian Rules, rugby league, trotting, and every sport with probably the exception of cars going around tracks very quickly. I do not believe the Opposition is correct when it says that what we are doing today is an attempt to subvert or pre-empt the provisions of the liquor bill that will be debated in a few weeks.
I understand the Opposition opposes section 24AA "Extended hotel trading hours—special events." I do not know whether the Opposition will move a further amendment but, clearly, the proposed amendment refers to "special events". A special event cannot be just at the whim of the Minister, despite what the Opposition says. Section 24AA(3) states, "For the purposes of subsection (2), special event" which is in heavy type, "means an event that the Minister considers ?". So, there is a ministerial discretion, but there always is under regulations. It continues, "to be of regional ?". Therefore, I am sure that applies to electorates of the member for Lismore, perhaps the member for Coffs Harbour or the member for Upper Hunter.
It could be a very major event in a country area. The special event may be in the Speaker's electorate of Northern Tablelands or in the Armidale-Tamworth area. It could be a very special event there. Obviously, I am thinking of the Tamworth music festival, which happens in January every year. The Minister could make an amendment to allow extended trading hours during that music festival. To be honest, I am sure that probably already happens. I am not totally familiar with what happens during the country music festival, but the point is that extended trading hours will be allowed under the definition of regional significance.
Of course, in that definition "state" means all of New South Wales. Perhaps that could apply to the opening of hotels for longer hours during the State of Origin in the Tweed area or somewhere like that. Of course, the definition of "national" is obvious if Australia were involved in something similar to the America's Cup in 1983 when Bob Hawke declared virtually a national holiday when we won. So, an event such as that would allow hotels to extend their trading hours. Finally, "international significance" would apply to events such as the one we are talking about. The Rugby World Cup is not being held in Australia this year, but I remember that it was on the last occasion. I am sure provisions would have been made for the operation of extended trading hours when that event was held in Australia four or five years ago.
I believe that proposed subsection (3) should not concern the Opposition much. The first Opposition spokesperson in this debate, the Opposition Whip, talked about how the Government was caught out when the two American ships arrived in Sydney Harbour earlier this year. I guess to some extent we probably were. I certainly did not consider that the people in my electorate of East Hills ought to get on the train and go down and look at two very big boats in Sydney Harbour. What is Sydney most famous for? The harbour. So if two ships turn up as they did—
Mr George Souris: You are really going on a ministerial whim now.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: That is a point.
Mr George Souris: The sudden arrival of a ship?
Mr ALAN ASHTON: No. I am referring to what was said by your first leading speaker. That is the point and it is in Hansard. We were very good on the Government side. There was no Opposition spokesman to lead for the Opposition. We thought in the spirit of this new situation, with the new Speaker, the new Government and the new period—
Mr George Souris: The bill is listed as number eight, not as number one.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: It is number one so we can get it passed before Australia wins the Rugby World Cup, even with Stephen Larkham's recent infection in his knee. The point is we allowed the Opposition Whip to speak on this and he raised the issue of the two ships coming in, saying how outrageous it was that the Government was not prepared to recognise the arrival of the two ships in the harbour as a special event and we should have been aware of it. If it was a special event, and given the thousands of sailors on the American aircraft carrier—
Mr Phillip Costa: Six thousand.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: That is right; I remember the excitement in some suburbs about the arrival of 6,000 American sailors. That in a sense was a special event. It might well have been that some of those sailors like a drink and maybe we could have extended the hotel hours; I do not know. I think the Opposition is reading far too much into this. The member for the Upper Hunter has talked about it being a blanket power. It is not. The bill is clearly called the "Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill".
Mr George Souris: The blanket powers bill.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: It is a good interjection by the member for the Upper Hunter, but it is not true; it is not the blanket powers bill. It is the Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill and it includes a definition of the Rugby World Cup and then talks about extended hotel trading hours for special events. That means the Parliament does not have to reconvene every couple of weeks to consider what might be a special event, a national or international event, across New South Wales, the South Coast, the North Coast, the outback or in the bush. We cannot have the Parliament reconvene each time, drag in every member from the North Tweed, Barwon, Broken Hill and all around the State so that we can vote that a hotel can be opened a couple of extra hours on a couple of extra days or perhaps only one day.
Another bill will be introduced that will have to survive upper House scrutiny. I think the Opposition is reading far too much into it if it thinks the Government would try to push through legislation that the member for Upper Hunter says contains blanket powers or is a Trojan Horse to deal with stalking or other offences. It is none of those things; it is common sense, as the member for Wollondilly says. It is added to the bill so the Minister can consider it as a special event. That would only be on the advice of the department and recognised by newspapers and radio that the event has regional, state, national or international significance. The shadow spokesman has highlighted it and I do not think his fears are justified. I believe the bill can go through as it is without need of amendment. It is simply an attempt not to have the Parliament brought back every time that we, or the public, consider there is some special event.
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [10.23 p.m.]: I speak on the Liquor Amendment (Special Events Hotel Trading) Bill and declare once again that I have an interest in a hotel. In saying that I would like to endorse what our shadow minister has just said. The Opposition does not oppose extending hotel trading hours for the Rugby World Cup. The shadow minister has foreshadowed a new Liquor Act and that is the appropriate time to discuss blanket ministerial approval, when it can be properly debated. The Government has the opportunity now to adjourn the debate on this bill and to avoid the amendment that was the shadow Minister foreshadowed would be moved in another place. We on this side fully support the Rugby World Cup extension of trading hours. However, giving a carte blanche approval to the Minister would be more appropriately addressed in the Liquor Act, which will be debated in the future.
Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.25 p.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable members—
Mr George Souris: I am not telling you how to run your business, but you should be taking an adjournment.
Mr BARRY COLLIER: Thank you for the advice but—
[Interruption]
The SPEAKER: Order! The Parliamentary Secretary has the call.
Mr BARRY COLLIER: I thank the members for Wagga Wagga, Upper Hunter, East Hills and Lismore for their contribution to the debate. I note—to quote the words of the member for the Upper Hunter—that the Opposition wholeheartedly supports the opportunity for hotels to have extended trading hours but opposes giving the Minister power by regulation to make rules for extending trading hours for certain future events. I also note the issues raised by the member for Wagga Wagga about noise and disturbances around hotels. I will deal with that first.
I think it important to keep in mind that a significant number of hotels already have extended trading hours approved and they will not be affected by this legislation. Also some hotels may not wish to make use of extended hours. The extension will not overrule any previously imposed trading restrictions or other conditions that apply to an individual hotel licence. This includes restrictions imposed on hotel licences to reduce disturbances to the neighbourhood, such as reduced trading hours and lockouts. The bill does not overrule local council planning approvals.
The Government expects, and the law requires—I am sure the member for the Upper Hunter is interested in this—hotels to operate responsibly and to ensure no undue disturbance to the neighbourhood at all times. That applies equally to hotels trading under these provisions. Any hotel that does not do the right thing runs the risk of being disciplined by having its trading hours cut back. Those hotels would then be unable to make use of extended hours on significant occasions in the future. The Government expects the local hotel operators to keep that in mind when they make use of the extended hours provided by the bill. The licensees and patrons must comply with the responsible service of alcohol laws or future hotel trading during major sporting events will be put at risk. Patrons arriving at or leaving licensed premises are also expected to be mindful of surrounding residents. Many of the regions, including the Sutherland Shire, have a very well regarded and successful liquor accord.
As to the power given to the Minister to make a regulation to cover future significant events, that power will be extended to allow sales for consumption on the premises only to be prescribed on a day on which a special event is to be held or on a day immediately following such a day. It is important to realise, of course, that the special event must be an event of regional, State or national significance. That applies right across the board. It applies to events in the Upper Hunter, Wagga Wagga and Lismore. In fact, I think there is a note that the Australian Hotels Association expects the majority of hotels, other than those already operating with 24-hour licences, to participate in country areas. Of course, that includes hotels with strong sporting associations. Many of the country people who are interested in these sporting events will benefit from the extended trading hours.
The issue for hoteliers is that the broadcast schedules for international events are not often finalised until a month or two before those events. Often we do not even know whether the event will be telecast live to air on free-to-air television, pay television or any other local television channels until the last minute. The issue is not what world events are scheduled; the issue is what time these events will be broadcast. Often that is not known until one or two months before the event. Obviously, it is a waste of public money and resources to recall the House to pass an amendment every time a special event occurs. I have no doubt that if something went wrong subsequent to a special event the Opposition would be yelling and screaming.
I reiterate that for a regulation to be made the Minister must consider the event to be of regional, State, national or international significance. That may apply to any specified class of premises, such as hotels located in a particular area. I hope the member for Upper Hunter will note that the regulation-making power will provide for action to be taken quickly to cater for future events. The power has been included simply because the essential details are often not known until quite near the event, and it is not always possible for amendments to the Liquor Act to be made in time. The 2007 Rugby World Cup is a good example: arrangements can be made only now for finals matches, not for pool matches, because of the timing. The proposed regulation-making power will overcome that problem.
It is important to remember that the Government has no specific events in mind at this time. However, I have no doubt that when an event perceived by the member for Upper Hunter to be an event of regional importance is planned for his electorate he will be the first to knock on the Minister's door asking that the event be televised and that hotels be permitted to stay open a bit later so that supporters in sporting clubs in his electorate and his other constituents will be able to view the event at a hotel.
Mr George Souris: I am known for giving ample time.
Mr BARRY COLLIER: The member for Upper Hunter will be the first person to knock on the Minister's door, and when he asks his regional television station to televise the event the response probably will be, "Maybe, George—maybe not. We will discuss it a bit later."
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to continue his reply.
Mr BARRY COLLIER: The Government has no specific events in mind. Industry views will be considered. The member for Upper Hunter may note also that police have been consulted in relation to the extension of hotel trading hours, as I am sure they will be consulted in relation to the extension of other business trading hours during special events. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That the bill be now agreed to in principle—put.
The House divided.Ayes, 44
Ms Andrews
Mr Aquilina
Ms Beamer
Mr Borger
Ms Burney
Ms Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Coombs
Mr Corrigan
Mr Costa
Mr Daley
Ms D'Amore
Ms Firth
Ms Gadiel | Mr Gibson
Mr Greene
Mr Harris
Mr Hickey
Ms Hornery
Ms Keneally
Mr Khoshaba
Mr Koperberg
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Dr McDonald
Ms McKay
Mr McLeay
Ms McMahon
Ms Meagher | Mr Morris
Mrs Paluzzano
Mr Pearce
Mrs Perry
Mr Rees
Mr Sartor
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Ms Tebbutt
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr Whan
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Noes, 33
Mr Aplin
Mr Baird
Mr Baumann
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Debnam
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard | Ms Hodgkinson
Mrs Hopwood
Mr Kerr
Mr Merton
Ms Moore
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Dea
Mr Page
Mr Provest
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Mr Smith | Mr Souris
Mr Stokes
Mr Stoner
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Mr J. D. Williams
Mr R. C. Williams
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Pairs
| Ms Judge | Mrs Hancock |
| Mr Terenzini | Mr O'Farrell |
| Mr West | Mrs Skinner |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Passing of the Bill
Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
Last modified 16/07/2008 11:44:07 : Update this page