Debate resumed from 13 November 2008.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [10.08 a.m.]: I have pleasure in leading for the Liberal-Nationals Opposition on the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. At the outset, I make a general comment about legislation and the processes of government, media, public policy and legislation. In fact, the sequence I have just given is probably the better way to proceed than the sequence we have witnessed with this bill, which was virtually the opposite. It involved a media report, followed by an urgent media release issued by the Premier in his infant days as Premier, and we all know how inexperienced he is. He issued a press release that dealt with very complex matters that would become legislation, much of it regulation, without undergoing the proper processes of development of good public policy. After all, it was only on 1 July 2008 that the rewritten Liquor Act commenced. After a few months of the great omnibus rewriting of the Act, the greatest reform of the liquor industry ever, and the greatest rewriting of an Act we have ever seen resulting in a very large piece of legislation, the Premier regarded it as appropriate to make public comments, issue a press release, and proceed to introduce a whole series of amendments.

As we approach summer, our very active Police Media Unit—which seems to specialise in issuing dramatic statements at 5.00 a.m. each day—broadcasts virtually isolated, single incidents that become major news that members of Parliament digest as we listen in the early part of the morning. With Christmas parties and the Christmas Season's festivities underway, our inexperienced Premier will see fit to issue another media release to make a hero of himself in some meaningless way and commit everyone to proceeding down the path of legislation by media release, which is never a good idea. I make that point in the interests of good government and good policy. Having been the shadow Minister for this portfolio for a number of years, I believe we have reached saturation point with overregulation and over legislation in the general industry that involves hotels and clubs.

In the licensing area, which includes liquor licences, poker machine licences and gambling licences, I fear over legislation and overregulation will go too far. Although I do not know what constitutes too far, I feel we are heading towards it. This approach can only result in creating a black market, sending liquor trading underground. We will be creating a backstreet, underground black market. The obvious example of that type of result was prohibition in the United States, but we have similar examples in New South Wales. Do we not all remember the boutique illegal casinos that flourished throughout Sydney? Do we not remember the 33 club, the Forbes club, the 222 club and the Double Bay Bridge Club? Of course, I did not go to any of those, but I know they all existed.

Mr Kevin Greene: You read about them?

Mr GEORGE SOURIS: I read about them. There used to be queues, and I was curious about why people were queuing. In the end result, high volumes of regulation and legislation are counter-productive. We must be very careful with Liquor Act amendments to ensure that new provisions do not force patrons to resort to the black market and underground or illegal venues and outlets. After all, considering all the effort we have contributed to fighting illicit drugs, do we really think that continuous prohibition being applied to liquor trading and legislation will resolve the problem, or do we recognise that it will result in sending liquor trading underground? I cannot make the point strongly enough.

We cannot walk away from the problem, but increasing prohibition does not get us very far. I will deal with the point I am about to make in more detail later, but I believe that education and personal responsibility, although a difficult and imprecise area, should be considered and followed through to see whether such an approach can be applied to this area. That approach achieved a significant reduction in tobacco consumption without imposing prohibitions and fines for smoking. Some exclusions apply to licensed venues, but that is just one small area. Generally I believe that education, which includes advertising and public information campaigns, has been more effective in creating benefits. The same could be said about campaigns for motor vehicle safety, such as seat belt and drink driving campaigns, which led to successful outcomes. It is true that information campaigns must be renewed because people forget, but nobody could deny that they are successful campaigns, especially coupled with sanctions and prohibitions. The point I make is that prohibition alone may not achieve the outcomes the Government wants.

The Government has been heavily reliant upon statistical information in formulating this bill and the regulations associated with it. The statistics are controversial. I am not an expert but, generally speaking, I believe they present raw data only. It does not surprise me that on the Premier's recklessly produced list of 50 venues, high-volume very large venues appear, such as the Penrith Panthers, the Campbelltown Catholic Club, and similar places. I understand that Penrith Panthers has 40,000 visitors a day. Millions of people go to that venue every year, so it does not surprise me that a number of incidents occur. Compared with a small hotel elsewhere, those incidents look bad because comparative statistics present the information in a certain way. However, the reality is that a very large venue will be penalised purely because of its size: no account is taken of the tremendous measures that many of the large venues invoke in adopting a responsible approach and in coming to grips with problems that present themselves at their very front door.

Before I deal in detail with the bill, I point out that the new Liquor Act that commenced on 1 July provides significant new powers. I believe we have not had sufficient time to assess the implementation of those powers. There has not been sufficient time to analyse the statistics, and it is probable that the department has not been given appropriate resources to ensure that there are enough inspectors at the right times who are actively policing its provisions. I understand that more than 20 new inspectors have been trained. Apparently they have been assigned to duties other than the liquor trading area. I do not know whether the information I have received is true, but I ask the Minister to address the issue in his reply. Generally speaking, I am convinced that the department has not been provided with sufficient resources to undertake the tasks created by the commencement of the Liquor Act on 1 July.

Recent experience in Melbourne, Victoria, provides an example of the application of a blanket prohibition by the imposition of a 2.00 a.m. lockout throughout the city. In a way I am pleased that the Government has not adopted that approach. A month or more ago I issued a media release urging the Government to consider individual cases rather than adopt a blanket approach. For the sake of completeness, I note that the blanket approach was deemed to be a failure in Melbourne. I take this opportunity to read part of a report by the Australian Associated Press published on 13 November:

The NSW government will implement tough new laws to combat alcohol-related violence despite similar measures being scrapped after a controversial trial in Melbourne earlier this year.

Further on the document reads:

The laws are expected to be introduced on December 1, just one month after the Victorian government scrapped its 2 am lock-out policy for Melbourne's bars. The controversial policy was trialled earlier this year amid growing late-night drunken violence in the Victorian capital, but an evaluation of the trial by consultants KPMG is believed to have found it a failure.

This was mainly because many clubs and bars were getting exemptions from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to avoid locking out patrons.

The latter point I believe is a possible problem in this legislation. Whilst we have to be flexible, nonetheless a provision in the bill permits the director to give exemptions and modify conditions. I do not oppose that, but I offer the warning that as time goes by and as exemptions proceed, it will not be long before we do not have a venues list at all again. In any event the list is in great need of serious renovation and consideration of realities. I believe that each and every one of the venues on the list deserves and ought to be afforded an opportunity to present its arguments. Indeed, some months have gone by since the list was produced.

I would like to know whether the list reflects exactly what the Government feels now, today, about the 48 venues on the list. The historical statistics go back earlier than that, of course. Given the fullness of these couple of months of analysis and consideration, does the Government say that that list was correct, that it remains perfect, and that today, 26 November, the 48 venues remain recalcitrant and need to be considered violent hot spots, as the Government considered them to be when it included them on the list some months ago? I ask the Minister to address that aspect in his reply.

This legislation essentially has three items. Behind the legislation, however, are very comprehensive regulations. Once again I complain, as I have always complained every time we come to this sort of situation, that the regulations that are to be tabled in the Parliament are not exposed for public consideration. There has only been an information memorandum published on the Internet last Friday. I do not believe that is good enough. I believe this is rushing legislation through the Parliament. It is legislation by media; it is regulation by media, by press release. These regulations need to be considered. Indeed, I still have not seen the regulations. I can only base my comments on a single sheet of paper printed from the Internet, which attempts to inform people about the proposed regulations.

I understand the process, but there is no reason why the regulations should not by now have been drafted in their final form and exposed for public consideration, the Government having invited consultation and comment on them. Surely the Government would want that. Surely the Government would not want these regulations to be erroneous, contradictory, or impossible. But this is where we are going. We are heading down this path of contradiction again. I will return to this aspect. I point out a couple of recent examples whereby regulations had not been previously exposed and then, when the regulations were finally implemented, problems arose. I predict that when these regulations finally appear and the legislation starts to be implemented, because of the lack of public exposure and public cross-examination the Government will find it has made mistakes yet again. This is too important. We cannot implement legislation and regulation by this method. We cannot keep going along this path; it is not the best way to go.

As I said, the bill contains some measures. Firstly, it imposes a restriction on new licences beyond 18-hour trading. I understand what that says, but it does not address the problem area. It may well stop new venues becoming problems, but it really only addresses the issue at the margin. Tip-out powers are included, and this is an area I believe we need to consider. We need to consider whether problems will arise from this. Tip-out powers refer to the ability of police and local government officers designated by the police—for example, council rangers that have had this accreditation or designation—to approach members of the public in alcohol-free zones, or near them. That poses a problem. The person will say, "I am not in an alcohol-free zone. The sign is 100 metres away, and I am on this side of the sign. What is the point of the sign?" Such designated officers will have the power to apprehend these people, confiscate whatever alcohol they might have, and then tip the alcohol into the gutter. This is an extremely provocative act. If it does not lead to trouble, I would be very surprised.

I appreciate and understand the difficulty that has been experienced with the issuing of penalty notices. I know that in some areas the streets are littered with penalty notices, which obviously have been issued a short while earlier and simply thrown onto the street. I understand the problems about following through, getting correct addresses, and all of that. I simply wonder whether this extremely aggressive activity, which would be conducted by people such as council rangers, will really address the problem or whether it will cause many more incidents to occur.

The third item in the legislation I want to address is provisional drivers' licences. Extending a provisional licence by up to six months is a measure that the Government obviously feels is appropriate. My concern is that a provisional licence would be extended only by the issuance of a penalty notice. I am worried about avenues of protection, ensuring safeguards, and so on. What if a stolen provisional licence were used as a fake identity and a penalty notice has already been issued? The person may not even know about this until they finally realise one day, by correspondence, that their provisional licence has been extended by six months. They would then have to try to undo all of this, which could be six months later.

Also, of course, many young people do not have the resources, do not have access to the process, and so on, and I believe could be unfairly disadvantaged. None of the Act's provisions provide me with much comfort with regard to this aspect. I believe we need to consider this matter. A practice manual or rules governing the implementation of the regulations need to be drafted and exposed, and also publicly cross-examined, before the regulations are implemented. If implementation of the regulations is to be rushed in on 1 December, we could face a lot of problems. I have not even seen the regulations for this Act, let alone something like a standard code of practice that would apply to provisional licences.

I turn to the regulations. I repeat: It is difficult to debate this legislation not having seen the draft of regulations that are intended to become the regulations. As I said, looking at the information sheet published on the Internet, I can see difficulty in understanding some of the items; I can see contradictions and so on. I will go through a few of those items. First, I understand that the measure will relate only to violence hot spots. I will go through a number of issues. The 2.00 a.m. lockout could be counterproductive. I appreciate that clubs have been excluded from the 2.00 a.m. lockout provisions, which reverses a previous policy. The exclusion recognises that clubs have come a long way and have demonstrated a responsibility in this area. Obviously, Sydney is an international city and some of its precincts attract international tourism: it has the maturity of a world-class city. It is not unexpected that tourists might enjoy a drink at 2.00 a.m. when it is 8.00 p.m. where they came from. The 2.00 a.m. lockout will rope in all potential patrons and businesses in an attempt to prevent a problem that has been created by only a few people.

To point out how ridiculous things can become, I understand that the 2.00 a.m. lockout in California has resulted in a circus outside venues. People arrive just minutes before 2.00 a.m. and scramble for entry, only to be confronted by one of the security staff who cannot deal or cope with the situation. The legislation could create a similar problem for us. We must be careful to avoid the consequences—obviously unintended—that could become a feature of the regulation. The proposed regulation also provides for the cessation of the service of alcohol for a 30-minute period prior to closing time and the use of plastic drink containers for all drinks served after midnight. That proves something. The initial media release—this is another case of government by media release—referred only to beer containers. Straightaway there is an error and a contradiction and the Government had to act immediately. Luckily it was slow in producing even an information sheet on the proposed regulations. But lo and behold, on Friday, or was it Monday?

Mr Kevin Greene: Wednesday.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS: The Government did not send me a copy of the proposed regulations. Indeed, it did not send anyone a copy. People had to get the information from the Internet. On Friday we realised that the Government had woken up and realised that the proposed regulation by media release from the heroic Premier in his infant premiership had incorporated the error. The information sheet has now been amended to include all drink service. At least that shows that the Government realised it had made fundamental errors. However, the errors would have been exposed if the Government had engaged in proper consultation with the community and industry—proper consultation in advance and not after the media release had gone out. The Government should have got it right before it started this process. This matter is too difficult and complicated to have amateurs mucking around with press releases and a nice Minister trying to follow through and implement through legislation what some media staffer in the Premier's office thought was a pretty good way to get through talkback today. But that is what it has turned out to be.

The proposed regulation will create a big problem. For example, I understand it will cost Panthers rugby league club $30,000 to retool its operation so that all glass containers are replaced with plastic containers. I am not aware of all the items involved, but the proposed regulation will cost Panthers $30,000, apart from the operational aspect and additional labour. One consequence is that the proposed regulation will cost the industry a fair bit of money. I do not know whether that is an intended consequence. One potential difficulty relates to the reference to four drinks or a bottle of wine. I can only assume that it is not four schooners but four standard drinks. Does the Government realise that four standard beers contain a lot less alcohol than a bottle of wine, which is equivalent to about 5½ standard drinks? Are four drinks and a bottle of wine supposed to be the same? They are not the same; there is a significant difference.

The Minister has made a big error in thinking that four drinks, which are not specified in the information sheet—we assume they are middies of beer—are the same as a bottle of wine. The Government has not explained this to anyone, but somehow it has accepted the anomaly that four standard drinks of beer are equal to a 750-millilitre bottle of wine, which contains 14.5 per cent or 15 per cent alcohol. The Minister has got that wrong. The regulation will specify also that drinks will be limited to 5 per cent alcohol or 30 millilitres of spirit, and that drinks will be no more than 50 per cent spirit to other liquid. I suggest that a drink with a 30-millilitre alcohol component and water is quite strong compared to a low-alcohol drink. All this will do is push people into drinking more powerful drinks prior to the midnight change. Will that be productive or counterproductive?

The Government is seeking to prevent patrons from having rapid drinks or shots. However, people will move to the speedy consumption of rapid drinks just prior to midnight, which could be counterproductive. Has the Minister thought that through? The 10-minute ban on alcohol service per hour will mean that 50 minutes of every hour will be associated with purchasing drinks and people will be unable to buy drinks for 10 minutes every hour. Does the Minister know what will happen during the five minutes before the 10-minute ban begins? It used to be called the 6.00 o'clock swill. This will be called the 10-minute swill or the hourly swill. It is ridiculous. If the Minister thinks that somehow people engaging in this activity inside a busy hotel will solve the problems we see in the streets we have a problem. Stressed hotel staff who must stay alert for people who might be getting a little intoxicated will have difficulty keeping count of the number of drinks patrons are consuming.

The arguments that might start five or six minutes before the 10-minute ban on alcohol service, not to mention the swill itself, is another problem. The 10-minute ban in the proposed regulation is unfair to, and will create problems for, staff members who are trying to do their job as responsibly as they possibly can. They will have to endure a torrent of abuse and cope with an utterly impossible situation for 10 minutes every hour. The Government has to look at this better than it has. Who came up with all this? Did the Government do the research? Whom did it consult? The Government could have asked the shadow Minister but, no, the Government would not do that.

Together with more than 800 people I attended the Awards for Excellence hosted by the Australian Hotels Association (NSW) at the Westin Hotel—the Minister did not attend—at which six of the hotels on the Government's list won awards for excellence. Those venues must be doing something good, but the Government does not seem to know about it because they have been included in a list of shame based on a raw statistical basis. No doubt we will see more and more of these extraordinary contradictions. I was pleased to see that only four clubs, and they are the very large clubs, are included on the list—size alone will get a club on the list, almost for sure. It is time the industry was given a fair go. I sympathise with some of the points made recently by leaders in the industry, such as ClubsNSW, the Australian Hotels Association (NSW) and others. I quote from a statement made by ClubsNSW in response to the Premier's media release:

The Premier's decision to re-allow club members after 2.00 a.m. is recognition of the security and safety provided by the clubs sign-in procedure. When people come to a club, they voluntarily reveal their identity when they show their membership card or sign-in. There can be no stronger deterrent to troublemakers.

That is a good response to a good decision. No patron of Penrith Panthers has ever been the victim of glassing, despite several million people passing through its front door each year. The number of assaults at the Campbelltown Catholic Club has reduced by almost 50 per cent this year—with one assault in the past month that was not alcohol related. Was the statistical information collected during that period to qualify the nominated venues for a place on the violent hot-spot list? Is the statistical information current? If so, how current is it? Will those statistics be reviewed monthly? If so, will they be statistics for the immediate preceding month or will it take months to consider information from months ago? People want answers.

If the industry is asking me questions it must mean that the Government has not consulted the industry or provided answers. It may also mean that statistical procedures have not been upgraded to provide the fast response that is required. The industry is being unfairly punished and penalised—no wonder it is calling for a fair go. The Australian Hotels Association (NSW) issued a statement titled "A fair go for New South Wales Hotels". The statement is a plea from one of the most significant industries covered by the Minister's portfolio, yet it had to be done by way of a public statement. The Government is preventing the industry from receiving assistance. The statement reads:

An incident is classified as alcohol related automatically if a victim OR offender say they have had ONE drink, regardless of affectation.

Whereas the NSW Auditor General alleges that so-called "alcohol related crime" has doubled in the last 10 years. In 2004 police altered their method of reporting and that is directly responsible for this statistical rise, a fact known to the Auditor General but not acknowledged in the media release.

Some 200,000 people work in the hotel industry. The current debate over antisocial behaviour in the media fails to identify real causal links to the emergence of more aggressive consumer behaviour. The statement continues to refer to a lack of personal responsibility. This morning I read a report in both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph that on this very day in Sydney a major drug conference is to be conducted. I quote from today's Daily Telegraph:

Most teenagers have had their first stiff drink before their 14th birthday, research has found.

And girls no longer lag behind boys in their enthusiasm to get acquainted with alcohol.

The changing trends promoted addiction experts to urge parents to be more vigilant in delaying the age their child tries alcohol.

Research to be presented at a drug conference in Sydney today shows the average age to start drinking has fallen more than five years over the past three decades.

"By the time most Australian teenagers reach 14 years of age more than half, about 55 per cent, have already had a full drink," said Dr Toby Freeman from Flinders University in Adelaide.

In comparison, a 60-year old—

I can nearly relate to that. Minister Greene has a little way to go yet.

Mr Alan Ashton: You are okay.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS: The article continues:

In comparison, a 60-year old typically started drinking between the ages of 19 and 23.

"There is also no longer a gender difference in the age of alcohol initiation in Australia. Females have been catching up with males and are almost equal in the age at which they first try alcohol," Dr Freeman said.

Heavy commercialisation of alcohol, more products and wider availability, coupled with greater youth independence and more money in kids' pockets were driving the trend.

These are the causes and we must come to grips with them. The area of personal responsibility is left unattended by the Government. The article continues:

There was also an increase in levels of risky drinking.

The findings from the 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey found almost half of 18-year-olds were risky drinkers, downing more than five standard drinks in a day if they were female and more than seven for males.

Dr Freeman said the age teenagers started drinking was a critical factor for parents to watch for, as it can predict who will go on to develop other drug use and mental health problems.

I dare say that comment by Dr Freeman refers to some of the problems that we are observing outside some venues. I return to the statistical information. The Australian Hotels Association (NSW) wrote to Minister Kelly—I am sure Minister Greene will have received a copy of this letter, as I have—about the use of the statistics. I quote from that letter:

The cornerstone of the Government policy direction is the provision of a list of the so-called 50 worst licensed premises in NSW for violence. This list was drawn solely from NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research raw data in relation to reported incidents of non-domestic violence related assaults occurring on licensed premises. That data has been sourced directly from the NSW Police Force Computerised Operational Policing System [COPS] database from information entered by police officers based on incidents they have attended, or have been reported to them by members of the public. The location and circumstances surrounding the incident is depended upon the information supplied, and police correctly recording the incident location.

The AHA (New South Wales) disputes the use of raw BOCSAR data for the following reasons:

1. The data relates to two reported assaults on the NSW Computerised Operational Policing System [COPS] database. Although some relate to actually incidents, some comprise only a version provided to police that may or may not be supported by evidence or may not involve any injury.

2. A large number of the "reported" assaults occur at the entrance to licensed premises when security and other staff prevent intoxicated or aggressive persons gaining entry, in compliance with the relevant law.

Departing from the script for a moment, surely the Minister knows that security staff at a venue refusing entry to someone who might be displaying signs of intoxication probably will result in a statistic being recorded against the hotel when its staff did the right thing. Where is the incentive? Security staff know that responsibly refusing entry to a flood of people seeking admission to a venue approaching the 2.00 a.m. lockout, which is what we want them to do, will be recorded as a bad statistic against that venue. The venue will stay on the list of shame and the problem will continue. The incentive to admit patrons is great. I am not casting any aspersions but the Minister must consider the regulation to determine whether the desired outcomes will be achieved or whether the statistics are skewed towards bad outcomes and more trouble, not less, outside venues. The AHA continues:

3. A further number of "reported" assaults involve assaults occasioned upon staff when requiring persons approaching intoxication or behaving in an aggressive manner to leave the premises.

We do not want to go down the path of placing intoxicated patrons in designated hotel areas to cool off, as they have done in California. New South Wales laws would prevent such involuntary detention, but in California intoxicated patrons are put in the cooler in a sectioned off area of the hotel, probably somewhere downstairs in the basement. It may be better to leave them in such an area for a couple of hours with a drink of water than to kick them out of the venue and to have them cause trouble that will be reflected in the hotel's statistics. We have to know what the consequences are. The Minister should look at the California experience—the stupidity of such a regulation—and see what it has led to. Australians would think it is laughable, but as the Government piles more and more regulation on the industry and the public we will see more evidence of this type of irrational behaviour. Such behaviour is not the intended consequence of industry. One can only hope it is the unintended consequence that members of the public will be engaged in. The letter continues:

5. The AHA (NSW) has obtained further information from BOCSAR regarding those reported assaults the Premier's directive relied upon. This has confirmed a significant number of those reports did not involve any police action. In fact, in the case of the Mean Fiddler Hotel 73 "reported" assaults, only 10 resulted in further police action.

6. All licensed premises that met with licensing police were able to refute a large number of assaults as not occurring on their venues, or occurring at the door against their staff prior to entry. In one case, 25 reported assaults became 8 actual incidents—7 of which involved assaults against staff at the door BEFORE the person gained entry.

Has the Minister studied this aspect of the statistical information that he has relied upon entirely to produce his list? The relevant matters are: did the venues have any opportunity to tell the Minister something like that before they were added to the list? Did the Minister know Scruffy Murphy's has been using plastic drink containers for many months, maybe a year, or did he just put it on the list because statistics indicated a high volume of incidents? Scruffy Murphy's is a very attractive hotel for overseas backpackers and young tourists. Does Scruffy Murphy's already know what the Minister's unpublished regulations will contain from 1 December? Good thinking, Government! It really is on the ball!

Relying upon raw data for the number of assaults will result in a number of licensees failing to report assault allegations of a minor nature on their premises, due mainly to the negative publicity of naming the premises publicly, and the concomitant consequence of ending up on the Minister's list and being penalised even further—it is counterproductive. The AHA proposes an alternative to this raw-data approach, which I will not go through now. It is worth consulting with industry to ascertain whether everybody can agree on a better approach to get good information rather than rely on flawed raw statistical data on which the Minister has based almost everything he has said.

The Opposition will not oppose this legislation. Members of the Opposition have no choice but to take a lot of this material on trust. I hope the Minister is now aware of our frustration when law is made in this place on information that is hard to interpret and on which the Minister relies to make changes, particularly law that will affect many people and the industry and which is to come into place very soon. The legislation contains contradictions, which will make it difficult for members of the public—me included—to interpret where truth and reality lie. We will have to wait to see whether the consequences of the legislation are what we are all hoping for and what its unintended consequences will be. I do not think the Minister has given this legislation anywhere near the time he should have. I do not think he has engaged in sufficient meaningful consultation with industry. Unfortunately, this very immature Premier sees the legislation as a good way to bang out a press release, respond to talk and let someone else mop up the consequences. That is what we are trying to come to grips with today.

Ms MARIE ANDREWS (Gosford) [10.56 a.m.]: I support the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. This bill demonstrates this Government's determination to tackle alcohol-related violence and antisocial drinking. Sadly, despite the best efforts of our courageous and dedicated local police officers who work to protect the community from alcohol-related violence, my electorate of Gosford is not immune from such problems. Our beautiful coastlines, our open spaces and our thriving hospitality industry combine to make the Central Coast a wonderful place to live and one of the State's most popular tourist destinations. It is important that we do everything we can to ensure the safety and future of one of the State's treasures, and that is why I am pleased to support the legislation before the House today.

We know that one of the key drivers of alcohol-related violence is late trading, and that is what makes the Premier's commitment to end new 24-hour licences so important. I am therefore pleased that this bill gives effect to this commitment and amends the Liquor Act so that all new licences are limited to 18-hour trading. With almost one in four residents in my electorate aged under 18, under-age drinking presents as a serious concern and comes at a substantial cost to the Central Coast community. This legislation ensures that we are protecting our young people by effectively discouraging dangerous drinking habits. The transition from P-plates to full licences is an important rite of passage in the lives of many young people. The proposal to extend the probationary licence period by six months for young people caught using false identification sends a direct and loud message that under-age drinking will not be tolerated. Six months is an eternity for a teenager.

Under-age drinking and the consumption of alcohol in beachfront areas have been a significant concern in the local community, and have resulted in broken glass and litter, vandalism and assaults at our scenic waterfront areas. I am pleased that the Premier's new measures will help to address those issues. Antisocial drinking and consuming alcohol in beachfront areas, such as Umina and Ettalong within my electorate of Gosford, and also in the waterfront areas of Woy Woy, Gosford and other locations, will now be targeted by the new powers, enabling police and council rangers to confiscate alcohol being consumed in declared alcohol-free zones and tip it out on the spot.

The practicality and immediacy of these amendments demonstrate the commitment of local police commands, local councils and all arms of government to work together to overcome this problem. Not only does under-age drinking cost the local community; it involves a serious health issue—the health of our young people. These new restrictions aim to reduce intoxication and the associated impacts on the community while increasing safety, particularly in my electorate of Gosford where local residents and businesses have had enough. They are fed up with alcohol-related crime. Brisbane Water and Tuggerah Lakes local area command police officers have made considerable efforts over the years to reduce alcohol-related crime in local communities.

I take the opportunity to commend the police officers, in particular the licensing police who have gone to tremendous effort to curtail intoxicated-related crime in our area. Their efforts have involved lockouts at a few nightclubs on the Central Coast. Unfortunately, the owners of some of the nightclubs have not co-operated with police to help combat this problem. The R3 squad has been established to focus on the trouble spots at known danger times over the summer period. These new measures will greatly assist police in targeting under-age drinkers, public drinking and drunken louts who engage in antisocial behaviour and violence. I congratulate the Premier, the Minister for Gaming and Racing and the Government on introducing the bill to the House. I am convinced that this legislation will go a long way in addressing antisocial behaviour and vandalism, which, unfortunately, in many instances goes hand in hand with the excessive consumption of alcohol. I take pleasure in commending the bill to the House.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [11.01 a.m.]: In speaking to the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 I declare at the outset that I have an interest in a hotel and have been a previous hotel licensee. I compliment the shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing, the member for Upper Hunter, on his dedication to this issue and his contribution to this debate. I want to put a few matters on record from an experienced point of view. As I have already said personally to the Minister for Gaming and Racing, liquor accords are a very important mechanism in the liquor industry. However, I do not believe they have been used to their full extent. I believe, and I will continue to advocate, that licensees should be required to be members of a local liquor accord. Generally only hotels take part in liquor accords. Licensees of other outlets that open early hours of the morning, such as bottle shops, do not consider that they have a responsibility to take part in a liquor accord. I believe that any licensee of any liquor premises should be required, as part of a licence, to be a member of a liquor accord.

The shadow Minister referred to matters recorded against a hotel. For example, a gentleman who is intoxicated, in the opinion of security staff at a hotel, comes to the front door of the hotel and wants to gain entry. The security staff immediately refuse entry. Because of problems associated with the person wanting to gain entry into the hotel the police are called to deal with him. The matter is recorded against that hotel. The next morning the licensee of that hotel talks to licensees of other hotels in the area and finds out that this person had been evicted from two other pubs. Yet when the intoxicated person turns up at this pub and the security staff do the right thing by refusing him entry the conviction of the intoxicated person is recorded against the hotel that refused entry, not the two hotels that he was evicted from. Under the liquor accord at Casino hotels inform other hotels when a person is evicted. That measure could work in country areas but may be difficult to implement in city areas. At times intoxicated persons can be smuggled into a hotel amongst their mates and staff do not realise they are intoxicated until they are inside the hotel. I reinforce the shadow Minister's comment: the hotel that does the right thing and refuses entry has the charge recorded against it.

I also compliment the shadow Minister on comments he made about the amount of traffic through hotels. He said that no consideration is given on a pro rata basis to the amount of traffic that passes through hotels. A hotel with 2,000 patrons a day—such as hotels in the electorate of the Minister—may deal with more problems than a hotel with 20 patrons a day does. But on a pro rata basis, the number of problems dealt with by the hotel with 2,000 patrons may be no worse than the number dealt with by the smaller hotels. Based on the number of customer visits, the larger hotels probably are running as good or better a pub or licensed venue as some of the smaller hotels. However, no credit is given to the larger organisations for the number of customers or the number of kegs put through a day. People are critical of big venues but, as the shadow Minister said, on a pro rata basis—for example, the number of patrons per day at Penrith Leagues Club—they may have a very good record. Sadly, the statistics do not reveal that good record.

The best measure to implement in the running of a hotel, from a licensee's point of view, is to use plastic cups for large crowds. Most pubs, when they get large crowds, will convert to plastic cups. A lot of people complain, especially beer drinkers who do not want to drink beer out of a plastic cup. Probably no-one likes to drink from a plastic cup, but on a big day converting to plastic cups is the easiest way to deal with large crowds. As I said, a lot of people hate drinking out of plastic cups and it can cause arguments if people are given a beer, a spirit or a soft drink in a plastic cup.

Mr Kevin Greene: Polycarbonates.

Mr THOMAS GEORGE: Polycarbonates, yes. As I said, I wanted to put on record some practical ideas in support of the shadow Minister, who covered every aspect of the bill. As the shadow Minister said, at this stage the Opposition does not oppose the bill. Although the Government has the responsibility to introduce laws in this State, we must bear in mind that licensed venues, whether they are pubs, clubs or bottle shops, try to carry out their requirements in a professional manner.

Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [11.08 a.m.]: I do not oppose the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. However, I want to speak about concerns that have been raised with me in relation to the Dubbo Liquor Accord, one of the first liquor accords in New South Wales. I recently received a letter stating that the operation of the new Act is causing considerable concerns to the members of the Dubbo Liquor Accord. All industries under the banner of hospitality, including clubs, hotels, restaurants, bottle shops and motels, have expressed concerns.

I will go through those concerns: The powers of the Director of Liquor and Gaming are wide reaching and do not have the fairness of a court-based system. Businesses are seriously concerned that any complaint made against them will be acted upon without any evidence being required and that the complainant is not required to substantiate his or her claim. Action may be taken against a whole community rather than just targeting the premises that are responsible for the misconduct. That does not reward the vast majority that are doing the right thing. Action could also be taken to address the lack of Government resources rather than a premises' misconduct—for example, reducing trading hours because of lack of police. Giving all this power to one person is a breakdown of natural justice and proper protocol.

The guidelines issued were far too restrictive according to members of the Dubbo Liquor Accord and subject to individual interpretation. Just about any promotion that they are currently holding or have held in the past may be deemed prohibited under the guidelines. They should be allowed to promote their businesses provided they adhere to responsible service of alcohol [RSA] practices. In regard to trading hours, there have been many rumours circulating about the reduction of trading hours as a blanket solution to reducing alcohol-related incidents. Once again, responsible service of alcohol practices should be targeted, not just blanket trading hours. The blanket reduction of trading hours may cause more activity in public places, such as parks and private homes, where there is not the supervision from a licensee and staff trained in responsible service of alcohol, or the added assistance of security staff. This will give ready access to alcohol to minors and will result in more neighbourhood disturbances.

We heard from the member for Upper Hunter. In my area at the moment at the weekends minors are raiding their fathers' bars. Sometimes their mums and dads are at home but because it is happening on their premises no charges are laid. This happens every weekend in Dubbo. Minors are vandalising street signs and letterboxes. Those involved are not the indigenous youth that everyone seems to target when we have issues in Dubbo, they are from homes of the well-heeled. We need laws to deal with this increasing problem.

Members of the Dubbo Liquor Accord also mentioned that a reduction of trading hours will not necessarily reduce assaults. Statistics show that there are more incidents of assault happening in public places or private homes than on licensed premises. All premises are judged on the worst operator with no reward for good operators. The law does not take into account responsible service of alcohol practices, staff training and well-managed operations being good corporate citizens, as most clubs and hotels are. It discriminates against those whose regular working hours are different from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., assumes that any person in a licensed premises after midnight is there for the purpose of excessive consumption, binge drinking or alcohol abuse and assumes that all problems in the street are a direct result of licensed premises trading.

After a cricket grand final at Dubbo one team was in the Milestone Hotel. At 10.45 p.m. the team members saw members of the opposing cricket team coming down the street, very inebriated and taking up the whole of the main street and looking to cause problems with the other team. The hotel had the commonsense to close the hotel doors and call the police. But where is that sort of statistic recorded?

Members of the Dubbo Liquor Accord were given a document containing examples of activities or promotions likely to cause people to drink excessively. Included were promotional cards, external advertising of a complimentary drink and promotions, events or festivals. These are already covered under responsible service of alcohol guidelines. Any type of promotion, however run or described, is already subject to responsible service of alcohol practices, which should be enforced. Also included are competitions, games of skill, challenges, lotteries, games of chance and where entry, participation or outcomes depend on the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. If entry is gained by the purchase or supply of alcoholic beverages, the awarding of prizes of alcoholic beverages and the consumption of the alcoholic beverage prize on the licensed premises in such cases are included. Examples given were skolling games, boat races, beer pong, flip and win, schooner draws and joker poker.

The accord claims that all businesses that run a promotion expect to sell their product. A licensed premises would expect its promotion to result in the consumption of alcohol. This does not suggest that any or every promotion will lead to the excessive consumption of or abuse of alcohol. Again, the message should involve responsible service of alcohol practices, not the banning of ordinary promotions such as toss the boss, schooner draws, buy a drink for a ticket on the chocolate wheel and buy a drink and receive a ticket in the draw for anything—hats, T-shirts, Christmas hampers. All these activities are widely known in rural and regional New South Wales and probably in areas in Sydney as well.

Concerning the labelling or titling of promotions, examples were given of laybacks, beat the clock, and drink like a fish. The term "shot" has been widely used for a neat nip of spirit or liqueur. If a person wants to drink a straight nip of anything—for example, a fine malt whisky or Bailey's—they should be able to do so, provided responsible service of alcohol guidelines are not breached. A person should not be forced to consume it with ice or a soft drink mixer. Examples were given of drink cards that provide multiple free drinks, extreme discounts or discounts of limited duration. Drink cards encourage loyalty to a premises: they offer discounts for prepurchase or vouchers for a specific purpose. There is nothing to suggest that these will cause excessive or rapid consumption of alcohol. The way alcohol is consumed is already covered by responsible service of alcohol guidelines.

A pensioner may buy a book of 10 schooners for the price of eight, but it does not mean that they will consume more than normal or at a rapid rate. Premises keep a list of patrons' birthdays and send patrons a voucher to use within a month of their birthday. I regularly receive them. A venue could not give away a raffle prize of five schooners. Examples of non-standard containers included a yard glass, multiple supply of shooters, laybacks and jugs of mixed spirit. Members of the Dubbo accord state:

Non-standard containers is a broad statement. We have many different types of glassware apart from 7oz, middy, schooner we have hi-ball, pints, different size wine glasses and champagne flutes, promotional glasses for different products e.g becks, steinlager etc. The Guideline goes on to say jugs of mixed spirit are prohibited but does not mention jugs of beer. Drugs are commonly used by groups of people sharing either beer or mixed spirit. Again this should be fine subject to RSA.

In regard to the amendment about happy hours, the examples are that the time frame for the promotion is more than two hours and the timeframe for promotion occurs after 9.00 p.m. and separation between each happy hour is less than four hours. The liquor accord response was:

Happy hours are traditionally held in quiet periods or on quiet days. This would prevent doing cheaper prices from say 9am to 4pm which is mostly used by senior citizens. It would also prevent cheap Tuesday, currently being used by many other industries, petrol stations, movie theatres, pizza stores. It does not mean that people will consume alcohol excessively and is still subject to RSA practices. It also does not take into consideration of a premises normal price, eg happy hour price in a restaurant may still be dearer than normal price at a club. To say this promotion is OK before 9pm but not after is discriminatory against workers whose regular work hours are not 9am to 5pm. Nightclub style operations use this type of promotion to encourage people to come out earlier rather than later which is what the police want.

The policy on extremely discounted drinks gives no consideration to a premises' normal price and does not allow the premises to discount a discontinued line. Buy one get one free is normally used by two people and does not mean one person will consume twice as much. The service or consumption of alcohol is already addressed by the responsible service of alcohol guidelines. Examples of more than one free drink included free drinks until first points scored, gender-based discounts and free drinks for two hours. Liquor accord members claim:

This doesn't even allow us to give away a bottle of wine as a trivia prize. It doesn't even allow 2 schooners as a chocolate wheel prize, and certainly not a carton of beer as a raffle prize. Free drinks until first points scored has been a popular promotion on Grand Final Day it is still subject to RSA practices as is the rest of the day after the points have been scored. This is far too restrictive.

In regard to undercover or stealth marketing and viral marketing, the draft gave examples of persons engaged to talk up alcoholic beverages to patrons they befriend or persons engaged to spontaneously and enthusiastically talk up consumption of alcoholic beverages. Members of the Dubbo Liquor Accord claim that this could mean staff are no longer allowed to wear promotional shirts or recommend a product. A customer who asks, "I don't know what I want, what do you suggest?" would have to be told, "I'm sorry, sir, I'm not permitted to suggest anything".

In regard to holding a patron's financial institution card or providing alcohol on a credit card pay later basis, the accord says that the most serious of the guidelines would prevent running a tab for a work party where an employer hands over a credit card for a few staff he has brought to the pub and pays at the end. It would prevent running a tab for any reason—for a group of family or friends or for a function. It would prevent restaurants from billing you for alcohol at the end of the night. It would prevent the use of mini-bars in motels. Examples of promotions in conjunction with competitions that could potentially result in harassment of patrons and staff include sexually provocative activities, dangerous or unsafe behaviour, and lewd and indecent behaviour. Members of the Dubbo Liquor Accord claim:

Not sure what this is getting at. Would it make the competition for the search for a "Crusty Babe" (held when the Crusty Demons visited town) illegal? Competitions for the Gold Coast Indy girls? (once held in Port Macquarie) Does it ban lingerie waitresses? How will this affect bars in Kings Cross (strip clubs) will they now be illegal?

The language of this legislation is of concern as it says "Liquor Activities and promotions that will be subject to a notice under section 102". It does not say "may". It further says "Common examples include but not limited to" which leaves it wide open to be breached for anything.

In conclusion this legislation suggests even further that people cannot think for themselves and are not responsible for themselves. It also treats the entire community as 18 year old "binge drinkers". The message should be the "Responsible Service of Alcohol" and all promotions should be subject to this one easy message. The whole point of the new Liquor Act was to make the law more simple.

As I said, I will not oppose this legislation. Whether the problem relates to domestic violence or alcohol, the police are always called in last and are expected to clean up the mess. I listened to their concerns about that. The intent of the bill is commendable and I will not oppose it. However, it must be regularly reviewed to ensure that the regulations are achieving what they are intended to achieve. The lines of communication should also be kept open between everyone involved in the process, particularly the police. I am concerned that someone involved in the industry might not like a competitor and could make a baseless complaint to the licensing sergeant and the competitor's premises would be closed down without a good, sound reason.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [11.21 a.m.]: I commend the Premier for taking action on the impact of alcohol-related violence in our communities when others have failed to in the past. Alcohol-related violence has been a very serious problem in our city, and for many other areas, particularly Manly and Newcastle. I also commend the former Minister, the Hon. Graham West, for responding to the community call for a more civilised drinking regime, including small bars, in his liquor reform bill. That was done eight years after Bob Carr committed to do it.

I support the Liquor Legislation Amendment bill, and I do so not as a wowser but as a very strong promoter of an exciting and dynamic city with a vibrant night-time economy. The bill will put a freeze on new 24-hour licensed premises. The bill also allows the police commissioner to give council officers ongoing powers in alcohol-free zones. The current fine system will be removed and powers will be focused on confiscation of alcohol. Alcohol-free zones will need to be reviewed every four years rather than three years. The bill also provides for a six-month extension on probationary licences for minors caught using or faking an ID to obtain liquor or to get in to a licensed venue.

Having a vibrant late night economy is essential to Sydney's status as a global city. Residents, visitors and tourists, particularly young people, need to have places to go out for a drink and dance, see live music and socialise late at night. A thriving night-time culture adds to the character and liveability of a city. While it is important to have a vibrant going-out scene, it is also important that we ensure safety for patrons and protect amenity for residents. In some areas alcohol-related violence and other impacts are beyond what our communities are prepared to, or should have to, tolerate. Action is needed.

The Sydney electorate is home to major late-night trading districts, including Kings Cross, Oxford Street-Taylor Square, George Street and the Entertainment Quarter. My office often receives complaints from residents concerned about the impacts of excessive liquor consumption in these areas, which also have the highest concentration of population in Australia. Glassings, homophobic violence and vilification, public urinations, vomit on the side of the road and patrons passed out on our streets the morning after reflect poorly on our entertainment scene, instil fear in the parents of patrons and require government action.

In 2007 one in every eight assaults in New South Wales took place in the city of Sydney, and at least half were alcohol related. Crime and policing evidence demonstrates a strong link between the number and density of late night and 24-hour trading licensed premises and alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour, with higher levels of alcohol-related crime in areas where extended-hour licensed premises are concentrated. In the city binge-drinking, antisocial behaviour and conflict with local residents are particularly associated with areas that have a concentration of large venues. Council staff estimate that the city last year spent more than $7 million to address the impacts of alcohol through safety programs, compliance, cleansing and policy development.

While most people behave responsibly when they go out to have something to drink and to socialise, the situation can become unmanageable where there is a high concentration of venues bringing hundreds of thousands of people to a small area, combined with a growing trend of youth binge-drinking. I do not believe the answer is to create a nanny State and to shut down all venues. Well-managed late-night premises contribute to making Sydney an exciting place. That is why I support the Government's decision to work with and impose conditions on the 48 venues with the highest number of assaults on premises. As of 1 December the new conditions for these venues include a mandatory 2.00 a.m. lockout. Contrary to what many people think, that does not mean the venue will be required to close. It means that no new patrons will be allowed entry. From midnight there will be glass and shot bans, drink purchase limits and 10-minute breaks in alcohol sales, and no alcohol sales will be permitted in the half hour before closing.

The Government has said it will also review security arrangements in each of the venues and work with licensees to provide increased security and additional transport options. Additional neighbouring venues may also be added to the 2.00 a.m. lockout ban if police observe a local spill-over effect. The list includes venues in the CBD, Kings Cross and Oxford Street, where my office regularly receives reports of serious problems and violence. Some of the venues on this list of 48 are concerned about the impact that these restrictions will have on their business. There are also concerns about there not being a right of appeal for venues and about restrictions encouraging licensees not to report violence and other impacts caused by patrons not being able to get back in to venues. The Government says that these venues were independently identified by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research as premises with frequent violence. I also understand that the restrictions can be lifted where there are improvements. I hope that this will occur.

Some people in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities are concerned that their venues have been unfairly targeted on this list because the violence associated with their premises is not caused by patrons or poor management but, instead, by homophobic patrons of other venues who attack their patrons in the front of the venue. Some venues that have a reasonable reputation have also been included on the list, potentially because they take the responsible approach of reporting violence on premises.

The community has also raised concerns about unintended consequences that could worsen problems as venues try to avoid or exploit the new restrictions. I am particularly disturbed by a rumour that some venues in the Oxford Street precinct intend to stop reporting assaults on premises so that they can be taken off the list. Local residents have also reported that some venues currently not on the list are rushing through expansion plans in order to capitalise on possible increases in early morning drinkers. Some of these are venues about which I receive regular complaints and which have a reputation for problems. These concerns need to be addressed and I ask the Minister to respond to them in his reply. I also ask the Minister to maintain ongoing communication with City of Sydney officers to resolve these issues. I ask that the Government closely monitor the progress of these restrictions to ensure that there are benefits and that the outcomes are reported back to Parliament.

The statistics used include only reported assaults on premises, while many problems go unreported or occur in surrounding streets—and the violence spilling over onto our streets is a major problem. The violence in our public domain is the most important problem. I understand that additional venues can be added to the list and subject to these new restrictions. I ask that the State Government work with councils and police in this process. I support the freeze on new 24-hour licences with provisions to approve different closing times to meet different community needs. I point out that 24-hour trading has been a particular concern to residents in my electorate. While there is a place for 24-hour trading in Sydney, when it is located in residential areas conflicts will always arise. The City of Sydney adopted a new Late Night Trading Premises Development Control Plan last year to improve planning for late-trading licensed premises. The plan made extended operating hours a privilege based on a proven record of good management.

In areas such as Kings Cross, Oxford Street and Taylor Square there is strong argument, indeed evidence, that 24-hour trading has reached saturation. However, past attempts by the city to refuse development applications for late-night trading on the basis of cumulative impact or saturation have not held up in the Land and Environment Court. The city began research in early 2007 on the concepts of cumulative impact, stress areas and saturation level to determine how a saturation point could be determined for Kings Cross, Oxford Street and Taylor Square. Based on the draft findings from this research, indicators of cumulative impacts include crime levels. Rates of alcohol-related crime in entertainment precincts compared with the capacity of policing resources to manage crime levels are a very serious concern to the police commanders in both Kings Cross and Surry Hills.

Transport capacity is also an issue because of the number of patrons within a precinct compared with the capacity of transport services to respond at appropriate times. That is a very serious issue that leads to a great deal of violence, particularly in the Darlinghurst Road and Oxford Street areas. In addition, the holding capacity of premises creates problems because of the total number of patrons approved for premises within a precinct compared with the likely maximum capacity of the precinct. Community perception of the impacts of late night alcohol trading and the level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the environment created is also an issue. Alcohol-related health and social data and the costs of these impacts, including the costs to councils, should also be considered.

How these criteria can be incorporated into our planning controls will be reported to council at our next meeting. However, I believe that these principles may best be incorporated into the licensing process, requiring cooperation with the State. I support removal of the fine system in alcohol-free zones so that powers of confiscation are used, removing the risk of homeless or young people getting caught up in a cycle of secondary charges related to unpaid fines. However, I have serious concerns about council rangers getting powers of confiscation in alcohol-free zones. Council rangers do not have the same powers, training, resources or support as police officers to deal with situations of potential violence. I am concerned that council rangers could find themselves in difficult and even threatening situations that they are not equipped to handle if they attempt to confiscate alcohol from people in alcohol-free zones. Illegal drinking is a matter for the police.

In order to resolve the range of other immediate and long-term impacts from late-night trading premises, I believe the State Government must also increase frequency of public transport for late-night patrons to reduce impacts on residents and businesses in late-night trading precincts; urgently act to ensure taxis are available in late-night trading precincts, including an overhaul of the 3.00 a.m. taxi changeover time and provision of secure taxi ranks; make participation in liquor accords compulsory for all premises with liquor licences; pursue action following the proposed high-visibility policing campaign in alcohol violence hot spots to remove extended trading hours from the worst managed licensed premises; impose a temporary freeze on new and expanded large venues in identified problem areas while a framework to assess cumulative impact and determine saturation is enacted in law; adopt in State legislation the principle that extended trading hours are a privilege, not a right, with all extended hours on permanent trial and review; and introduce mandatory controls on alcohol advertising, similar to those for tobacco.

I understand that the new measures in this bill are short-term, interim solutions and I support plans to develop a safety star-rating system to reward safe practices and good records and establish statewide sanctions for high-risk venues. We need a new civilised drinking culture, with sophisticated management of licensed premises. That is why I supported the small bars legislation and the recent reform of licensing laws. Late-night venues have a role in our cultural and social life, but they need to be well managed in appropriate locations to ensure a vibrant and liveable city. The first small bar is expected to get a licence under the new system this week and I am really hopeful that it marks a change in our drinking culture.

I understand also that the need to prepare community impact statements is discouraging some potential small bar operators as there are additional costs and the process can require expertise. While this impact assessment is vital, the current process includes unnecessary and costly duplication and is hampering the intended aims of the licensing reform. Councils are required to look at community impacts as part of the development application process and have expertise in this area. Therefore, it is logical for councils to carry out the assessment of community impacts for new licensed premises, efficiently combining the two assessment processes. [Extension of time agreed to.]

To help stimulate a much-needed change in drinking culture, I call on the Government to make the community impact assessment of licensed premises part of the development application process, rather than a separate process carried out by the applicant. I do not endorse prohibition and it is important that we support youth culture including bands, the music industry, business entrepreneurs and artists. But we must ensure that night entertainment areas are civilised and safe, and police and hospital resources are not clogged responding to incidents caused by excessive alcohol drinking. Binge drinking in our youth is a cultural issue and it needs to be addressed at the cause. What makes our youth choose to drink to such extremes? While we are looking at addressing the causes, I support this bill's proposal to manage some of the immediate impacts of alcohol-related violence and antisocial behaviour, without destroying the vibrant cultural and social life of our city.

Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [11.33 a.m.]: While the Opposition has some concerns about the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 we will not be opposing it. The bill will amend the Liquor Act 2007 to restrict the trading hours of licensed premises, to amend the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to alcohol-free zones and for other purposes. The bill will give police and local government enforcement officers new powers to confiscate and tip out alcohol in alcohol-free zones. That could lead to some confrontation. There is a difference between tipping out a half empty can of beer and emptying a full bottle of bourbon that might be worth $30 or $40. It will be interesting to see how that provision works. A couple of years ago there was a problem with illegal drinking in Robinson Park, which is just near my office and is encircled by a number of hotels.

When that was reported, the licensing sergeant would simply walk through the park. Invariably, by the time he reached the group of people who were drinking the alcohol had been secreted in a rubbish bin. He would merely go to the rubbish bin, take out the alcohol and ask the people nearby whether anyone owned it. Of course, no-one owned up to it so he tipped it out. That worked fairly well without this new legislation, but not all licensing sergeants were prepared to go to that extreme. There is a lack of incentive for local councils to issue infringement notices for drinking in alcohol-free zones simply because the previous $20 fines were often not paid and were not followed up. On occasions we would notice dropped in Robinson Park infringement notices that had been issued the day before in another town. Obviously, the person who had been given the infringement notice had no intention of paying that fine. Under this bill infringement notices will no longer be issued. Time will tell how effective this bill will be.

The bill also amends the Liquor Act 2007, the Local Government Act 1993 and the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 to, amongst other things, introduce regulations requiring young people who use fake identities to stay on their provisional drivers licences for an additional six months. The regulations will provide that where the offender is not a current licence holder the Roads and Traffic Authority will impose the additional six-month period when the licence application is made. Those regulations will provide that the Roads and Traffic Authority will not take any action if the licence application is made more than five years after the offence. This sanction will apply to offenders who are 14 years or older when committing the offence. I am sure a number of young people will not be aware that an extra six months has been imposed until they go for their P-plate licence. Again, time will tell how effective that provision will be.

The bill will require a six-hour closure each day as a condition to be included in all new liquor licences granted after 30 October 2008, the day on which the Premier made the announcement of the freeze. The six-hour closure will also apply to all existing liquor licences that have been granted extended trading after 30 October 2008. The majority of the general public would agree with the six-hour closure because they would not be in the habit of going to hotels and staying until the early hours of the morning. Most people would not have the capacity to drink for 24 hours. Some people may on rare occasions drink into the early hours of the morning if they are celebrating something and they may find this legislation inconvenient. However, they should have had sufficient to drink by 4.00 a.m. and should not want to start drinking again until 10.00 a.m.

I note that the bill allows exceptions to the six-hour closure period to be prescribed by regulation. It also allows hotels and motels to continue to sell liquor to patrons for consumption in private rooms during the six-hour closure. That is commonsense because these venues have mini-bars in every room and it would be impossible to enforce. Most people drink responsibly and the majority of problems with alcohol-related violence do not occur in hotels or clubs but in private homes. The introduction of the responsible service of alcohol has assisted to reduce alcohol-related violence, although I accept that the current trend of glassing is very disturbing. I am pleased that the bill restricts the use of glass containers and stipulates that plastic containers must be used after a certain time.

No matter what laws we pass to improve the responsible service of alcohol in licensed premises, alcohol-related violence in the home will continue. Nothing we can do will stop that, other than to educate people about their rights and informing women that they do not have tolerate that abuse. Above all else, violence sets a terrible example for children in those homes. A recent advertisement on television depicts a father asking a child to get him another beer. That teaches that child that relaxing and having a beer is a normal part of daily life. I hope these television advertisements can have an educative effect on our children. I know that is outside the leave of the bill, but it relates to the excess consumption of alcohol and the violence that flows from it.

Orange does not have the same problems that the member for Sydney referred to with respect to Kings Cross, but a number of hotels in Orange continually come to the attention of the police and the media. On a number of occasions one hotel was forced to close its doors for two or three days. A number of other hotels in the central business district have taken active steps to limit excess alcohol within the hotel, club or nearby with alcohol-free zones. They have organised with the taxis to spread out taxi ranks on Friday and Saturday nights to avoid large numbers of patrons from different hotels converging into the one area. That has been beneficial. Indeed, many hotels in Orange choose not to have extended trading hours and even on Saturday nights some close at 10.00 p.m. or 11.00 p.m. Most of the hotels in our small towns and villages work out what is a reasonable closing time. Only a small number of hotels in the city or country towns seek to have extended trading hours, which the Opposition and the Government have been tackling for some time.

There is considerable debate about increased binge drinking. I do not know whether that is factual. When we were young on occasion we had too much to drink, but we were quiet drunks rather than abusive drunks. This bill is aimed more at the abusive drunks, who cannot handle alcohol, not the guy or girl who sits quietly in the corner and then goes home—whether or not they drive is another issue. The vast majority of patrons who are celebrating or having a quiet drink do not want to become involved with the small number of people who insist on being violent. We certainly abhor the use of a glass to injure another person, especially a female who is not party to excessive alcohol.

The Opposition supports the thrust of the bill. I accept that further amendments will be required to take into account emerging trends. We must constantly monitor the situation to see what we can do to reduce alcohol-related violence in our towns, villages and cities, given that the vast majority of people are responsible when they are having a quiet celebration at the end of a week. Alcohol will never be removed from society, and I would not support that because I like a drink now and again. However, I will support any measure that will reduce alcohol-related violence in our hotels and clubs and within the home environment. Therefore, I support the bill.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [11.48 a.m.]: Although the Opposition supports the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, I am concerned about the way policy is being developed in this area and that the Government is looking for headlines rather than outcomes. I relate that back to the local liquor accords that have made a number of positive steps recently, particular in Manly. Alcohol-related violence is widespread throughout the State and is the scourge of many communities. It has troubled the Manly community for the past decade, if not longer. There is a culture in our society of drinking to excess. That is to be condemned and we must look for proactive measures to change that culture and behaviour so that a night out will be not one of fear of assaults while trying to get home but one of enjoyment.

I would happily agree with any measure that would improve the problem. If clear evidence were presented for any such measure, I would be 110 per cent for it. I certainly believe the former Minister for Gaming and Racing, Graham West, did a good job in relation to the previous liquor bill. A number of strong initiatives in that bill have already started to take effect, and I believe we are on the right track. In Manly we have seen changes in the culture. Significant gains are being made in Manly, not just in relation to curbing alcohol-related violence but in the way the whole precinct is managed. It is important to share these with the House. My concern remains, however, that all the good local work could be undone by a culture of policy by media release, which was well articulated by the shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing. We are fortunate to have the member for Upper Hunter as our shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing. His experience and overall expertise in this area has been of benefit not only to our side of the House but, I believe, to the entire House.

The Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to introduce a freeze on new 24-hour licences, give police powers to tip out drinks in alcohol-free zones, and extend the provisional licences of young people caught using false identification. There are also several regulations contained in the bill, which will come into effect on 1 December. However, as yet the detail of the regulations remain unseen by the very venues they affect. The regulations have not been formally presented to the local liquor accords, which is one of the major concerns I have with the legislation. It is a shame that the Government has not considered it worthwhile to consult in a broad and real way with the industry and the local liquor accord to seek their input as to whether the proposed regulations will work.

The proposed regulations include mandatory 2.00 a.m. lock-outs; no alcohol served 30 minutes before closing time; no glass use for beers served after midnight; limits on drinks purchased after midnight; and 10-minute time-outs in service every hour after midnight. All those measures, in isolation, seem potentially reasonable, but we need scientific evidence to show that they will work. As an example, with regard to the 10-minute time-outs in service every hour after midnight, how will that work? Will it not create congestion around bars? Will there be a green light when drinks start to be served again? This is just a commonsense approach. How will the measure help? If we are to introduce initiatives such as this, we should be able to point to scientific examples showing that they work and why they work. Is it simply a case of the Government saying, "Let's have a go at this; it may well work"? If that is the case, the Government should be transparent about the matter. It should explain to us, "This is the idea we put forward, and this is the basis of it." The Government should also explain who it consulted on the matter. It should not simply introduce legislation and say everyone will have to comply with it, without providing support for it. That is our main concern with this legislation.

Overall the Coalition does not oppose the bill, but we urge the Government to recognise the importance of consultation and cooperation in achieving meaningful reform of the liquor industry and, most importantly, achieving outcomes. Indeed, we should be focused on the outcomes. It is only through genuine cooperation between the licensees, police, council and the local business precinct that Manly has started to have significant success in reducing alcohol-related violence. Without such cooperation, the dangerous drinking culture will return. My concern relates to whether we understand some of these outcomes being achieved in our communities and what are the impacts of some of these changes in terms of the existing arrangements. I believe that over the last three or four months Manly has been leading the State in proactive measures to tackle alcohol-related crime. Six months ago pubs on Manly's Corso voluntarily agreed to trial a 2.30 a.m. closure. That came at a financial cost to the licensees. Everyone said it was about time we did something.

The licensees put their hand on the till, shut it and said, "Let's get on with it; we'll give it a go." Last year the Steyne Hotel banned Jager bombs because the licensee saw that they were being consumed at dangerously high levels. I worked with the Manly Liquor Accord to tighten the code of conduct to further clamp down on antisocial behaviour. Manly council's upgrade of The Corso, including lighting and CCTV cameras, has also improved security for patrons. In August this year the after-hours venue management plan was implemented, with further measures to improve safety for patrons. The architect of that plan was Superintendent Dave Darcy. The concept involves the whole precinct of Manly being managed as a whole, rather than isolated points being managed. The success of the concept was achieved by everyone agreeing to it, controlled and coordinated measures being implemented across the precinct, including security and transport, and all venues operating in that context.

One might ask: Have these measures been working over the last three months since the plan was implemented? Indeed, they have. As at 31 October this year there were 79 non-domestic assaults in Manly. Over the same period in 2007, there were 91 such assaults. This represents a reduction of 13 or 14 per cent in non-domestic assaults. The Steyne Hotel, in particular, has been targeted and is on the venue list. Prior to the implementation of Manly's after-hours venue management plan in August, there were three malicious woundings. However, since the plan was implemented there have been none. From 15 August to 25 November last year there were 14 assaults at the Steyne Hotel. This year, over the same period, the figure has dropped to four assaults.

A lot of work still needs to be done, but in the Manly community the after-hours venue management plan is working. It is one thing to introduce an overarching "let's change the world and let's clamp down" measure, without the scientific evidence to show that it will work. We need to understand the implications it will have on a community that is starting to achieve outcomes. That is the challenge I give to the Minister. If we chain one hotel in a whole group of hotels that are starting to achieve outcomes, does that jeopardise that hotel? I pose that question to the Minister, without necessarily having the solution to it. When we are looking at this, we need to understand that.

I asked the Manly Liquor Accord what has been its experience in the last three or four months. Doug Booker and Dave Darcy have done a significant amount of work in relation to this. Doug said that in the six years he has been a member of the Manly Liquor Accord there has not been the genuine cooperation and open communication between all players that there is now, and that that is the reason assaults are down across the board. Doug praised Dave Darcy's approach as Manly's chief police commander, which is to "coach people into change, rather than penalise, penalise, penalise", and the consultative style that has come into the accord. I have seen it first hand, and I believe it is starting to work. I do not suggest that all the measures that have been proposed should not be introduced. I believe that all of them seem to have merit in an intuitive sense, but I am concerned about the implications of implementing them without a scientific reference and what that will do to the advances of the Manly Liquor Accord.

Despite the gains in Manly, there are issues that still need to be addressed by the Government. Late-night transport remains a problem. I am pleased that Sydney Buses answered our call for extra bus services to deal with a surge of patrons that arose when venues agreed to the 2.30 a.m. lock-out. However, there is still a shortage of taxis. As a result, crowds continue to congregate and this is often when violence occurs. The local licensees have started to engage a shuttle bus company to drive patrons home. I am aware that the licensees are in discussion with the Ministry of Transport. I am pleased that the Ministry of Transport is constructively trying to achieve a solution whereby, if taxis are not providing a service, shuttle buses can be introduced. It demonstrates that the local community is working very hard to achieve results in relation to these problems. However, according to licensees and patrons, there are not enough taxis to deal with the surge, so we need to find a way to get more taxis, particularly if the shuttle bus solution cannot be implemented as a priority. The Government should be open to options to ensure that the community can get home safely late at night.

I am sure everyone would agree that over the past 10 years there has been a warranted approach to attacking licensees who have recklessly abandoned rules to suit their own purposes and have charged ahead not heeding community concerns and advice, completely disrupting local communities because of their disdain for any rules other than those that suit their purposes. I think there has been a change. I think licensees have started to understand that community concern and have started to respond to it. I certainly understand the community's concern and agree that licensees who continue their disdain for the rules should be put on the list of shame and that onerous restrictions should be placed on them. However, at the same time, a number of licensees are starting to address the concerns, and I believe we need to positively identify them and give them some latitude as they begin to bring about some positive outcomes. What are the measurable outcomes? Certainly violence through assaults is a very good measure to achieve. There are a whole range of measures we could achieve, but whatever they are we should stick to them.

Industry reform and the cultural shift required need cooperation and consultation with all stakeholders—that process failed in the lead-up to the introduction of this bill. I expected the Manly Liquor Licensing Accord, as one of the largest precincts, to be consulted. It is not hard to go to one of the biggest liquor accords and say, "Here are some of the measures we are going to introduce for those hotels or licensees that are not meeting the required measures." I am sure the Government would have received a constructive response. The Opposition wants transparency as to who is included on the list. How long will they stay on the list? By what parameters are they being measured? It is difficult to determine what the parameters are. There appears to be some correlation to violence, but it is difficult to defend something if there is no transparency. What are the incentives to come off the list? As licensees start to reach some of the benchmarks will they be taken off the list? Will the parameters be applied to every licensee across the State?

The Opposition urges the Government to look at local solutions that are working and list these examples—Manly is a good case study. There have been dramatic improvements in the Manly precinct and good lessons learned for use by other State accords. Support should be given to achieve the trend that is evident in Manly. Government should be about significant improvement. I appreciate the need to be seen as being tough against violence, and alcohol-induced violence in particular, but if outcomes are achieved in a particular region they should be supported and the solutions promoted. I do not wish to stand in the way of any positive progress in Manly or across the State in relation to this problem. I commend the Government for tackling the issue, which has been hidden for too long. The member for Sydney said we have been waiting eight years for the legislation brought forward by Minister West—a good step forward. The legislation is an attempt to start to do more. My concern is to not just look as though we are doing something, but to aim for the outcome. If we are achieving the things that we are trying to achieve then that should be commended, not the press release that went before it.

Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [12.02 p.m.]: I speak to the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The Coalition fully supports the need for something to be done but raise a number of concerns about the regulations. I commend the shadow Minister, Mr George Souris, for his remarkable work on behalf of the community in his support for the legislation but also for raising concern about the regulations. The bill seeks to address the measures the Government is intent on introducing that are not covered by the existing legislation. These include a freeze on any new 24-hour licences, limiting them to 18-hour trading; giving the police "tip-out" powers, to immediately tip out alcoholic drinks held by a person who is either drinking or has been drinking in an alcohol-free zone, or is in the immediate possession of alcoholic drinks and there is reasonable cause to believe the person intends to drink in an alcohol-free zone or in the vicinity of an alcohol-free zone; and granting the power to extend the period of a provisional licence of a young person who is caught using false identification documents—the period can be extended by up to six months.

The bill is the type of legislation we need, and the major industry bodies support its principals, but this is policy by press release. In a knee-jerk reaction the Government issued a press release and then thought, "What should we do now?" A policy has now been created around that press release, which seems to be the practice of the State Government. The Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is a perfect example of that practice: legislation based almost entirely on a press release put out by the Premier, with little actual detail about the bill, and seemingly very little consultation on the regulations. Before I continue, I repeat that the Opposition does not oppose the legislation. We agree that the legislation in principle is needed and we welcome it. We are all in favour of reducing violence, alcohol-related or otherwise, and making this State safer for our citizens. However, policy on the run is not a solution.

I will highlight areas of the bill with which the Opposition has some serious concerns. First and foremost, the regulations are to commence on 1 December 2008—only a couple of days from now. The full measures are yet unseen by the affected venues and the Australian Hotels Association, New South Wales branch. The affected venues and organisations do not have much time to comply with the measures. One example is the replacement of all glassware after midnight with polycarbonate or similar drink containers. Will a couple of days be long enough to source all the necessary wares to comply with the regulation? The regulation also includes wine bottles and ready-mixed drinks which, while understandable, may become a problem for premises wishing to sell patrons a bottle of fine wine or champagne. What will the policy be in regards to enforcing this from day one? For example, if venues have special drink containers on order, will they be exempt from penalty until they arrive?

The 10-minute alcohol time-outs may lead to alcohol stockpiling and swarming the bar—we will return to the old 6 o'clock swills but at a much later hour—and possible incidents of bar rage in the time preceding and following the time-out, which could lead to further violence. How will this be policed? The time-outs have no fixed time frame apart from 10 minutes per hour. The list of premises is another area for concern. How long will a venue be on the list? What will it take to be removed from the list? Will there be any reward or incentive for venues on the list to improve safety measures? Furthermore, the list is comprised of venues that perform poorly according to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR], which has been challenged as unreliable since it consists of basic raw data. In one case 25 raw data incidents became eight actual incidents, seven of which were assaults on staff at the door by people who had not been granted entry. Local liquor accords were stressed in the Liquor Act 2007; however, what incentives do venues have to stick with them, rather than withdraw and comply simply with the regulations? A one-size-fits-all solution may not necessarily be the best way to go. I ask the Government to consider that.

The Opposition does not oppose the bill but the legitimate concerns we have raised are the result of a rushed policy. In its haste to look proactive and busy, the State Government has not sufficiently thought out some elements of the bill. Members opposite should reflect on some of the concerns and provide the people of New South Wales with the well thought out legislation they need and deserve. I commend the Australian Hotels Association and ClubsNSW. All of the hotel publicans whom I know, together with the clubs, work very hard to provide a service to ensure their patrons are protected and well looked after. They are responsible individuals trying to do their best in a changing society. Rather than introducing ill thought out regulations, the Government should take a step back and consult with the affected organisations to make the legislation work.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [12.08 p.m.]: I speak to the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and note that this is the second set of liquor laws to be debated in this place this year. The first set of liquor laws was introduced to overhaul the licensing system; the current legislation seeks to address the real problem of alcohol-related violence in our community.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the House. Members should listen to the member for Pittwater in silence.

Mr ROB STOKES: It seems odd that these two issues were not addressed simultaneously, since there is a clear causal link between the two. The scourge of alcohol-related violence must be addressed in the planning and licensing regime for the establishment of new licensed premises or variations to existing licensed premises. The main problem with the Government's approach is that the bill reacts to the problem of alcohol-related violence. Rather, it should seek to establish a system of planning for the location and operation of premises that sell liquor, which would minimise the potential for alcohol-fuelled violence.

In the context of the current debate, I draw the attention of the House to the efforts of Pittwater Council to address the problem of alcohol-fuelled violence at the earliest possible stage, that is, at the assessment of applications for liquor licences. While council does not have a direct role in the assessment of licence applications, it does have a role in advocating on behalf of the community to the Office of Liquor, Racing and Gaming. To assist in ensuring a clear and consistent policy in the making of community impact statements, Pittwater Council has developed a framework for assessing the impacts that a proposed liquor licence will have on the community. According to Pittwater Council's policy, it will assess the community impact of a proposed liquor licence by reference to a number of factors, including location, hours of operation, land tenure and licence category.

I also commend Pittwater Council for its initiative under Mayor David James to establish a Mona Vale CBD working party—which includes licensees, police, business owners, elected officials, council staff and transport providers—to develop strategies to deal with alcohol-related violence in Mona Vale, our hot spot in Pittwater. It is interesting to note that while local governments take a strategic approach to address alcohol-related violence before licences are granted, the State Government takes a far more reactive approach by trying to fix up problems that have already occurred. Nonetheless, the measures in this bill are generally sensible and deserve support. In particular, the tip-out powers to be provided to police officers are manifestly sensible and overdue. It is farcical that at present police officers are empowered to only warn people not to drink or to stop drinking in an alcohol-free zone and can act only when such instruction is ignored. The maximum penalty for this offence under the Local Government Act is only a $22 fine, probably less than the value of the alcohol being consumed.

Even alcohol-free zones are a bit of a farce. Councils can make alcohol-free zones only on a road, reserve or car park and not on a public reserve or Crown reserve. In my community of Pittwater the main problems with alcohol-related violence occur not on roads but in the parks next to roads. Alcohol-free zones are operative only if the dates of operation are clearly displayed. As the alcohol-free zone signs are graffiti targets, the dates on which alcohol-free zones operate often are obscured. Further, the maximum penalty for a young person drinking in an alcohol-free zone is just one dollar more than the penalty for under-age drinking under the Summary Offences Act, which may take place on the other side of the street not in an alcohol-free zone. While the tip-out laws are sensible and the extension to the period of a provisional licence seems a good idea, I do not believe they go anywhere near far enough. In particular, the problems with the proposed new penalty of an extended period of a provisional licence are manifold.

First, many under-age drinkers may not have a provisional licence, so the prospect of having an extended provisional licence may not have much effect on them. Although it is not explicit in the bill, I understand it is proposed that if offenders do not have a licence and subsequently apply for one, they will commence their provisional licence in the knowledge that they will have a six months extension. I do not know how that will operate legally. Nevertheless, I understand that is the aim of the policy. Secondly, it is difficult to see the link between a penalty that places controls on the freedom of a young person to operate a motor vehicle and the offence of using false identification documents. Surely the nature of the penalty should be linked to the nature of the offence.

Further, if the false identification document is a false driver's licence, it follows that the young person is unlikely to have a provisional driver's licence that can be extended. Also, I believe the new penalty for using false identification documents completely fails to address the main discrepancy in the law, that is, the penalty for using a false identification [ID] is far less than the penalty for using a falsified or altered driver's licence. For example, if a young person is caught with a fake ID, the fine under the Liquor Act is in the order of $55. The penalty for using a falsified or altered driver's licence is several hundred dollars. There seems to be a clear discrepancy in this area.

The problem of alcohol-fuelled violence, particularly in my electorate of Pittwater, has become so widespread, so regular and so damaging and the response so inadequate that I do not believe the problem can be left to rest. Therefore, while I believe that the initiatives in this bill do not go far enough, I welcome them. The risks of drug use, particularly alcohol, for young people are very clear and well documented. Inhibited cognitive and social development, increased risk of assault, including sexual assault, malicious damage to property and broken families are just some of the consequences. About one in five 17-year-olds drink at dangerous levels once a week. The rates of harmful drinking are increasing in 12- to 15-year-olds and nearly 15 per cent of 16- to 17-year-olds recently have used cannabis. The problems of alcohol and drug use cost the New South Wales economy millions of dollars in extra policing requirements and healthcare.

For example, in Pittwater for the second time in as many months the riot squad was called to disperse hundreds of drunken youths. This time it was at the Avalon Family Market Day. Requiring the riot squad at a family market day is emblematic of the seriousness of the problem, the reactive and inadequate Government response and the critical need for an integrated response. The Government must react not only to the problems that are occurring but also examine the licensing and planning levels to ensure that these problems are, at least, less likely to develop. Such changes can help public authorities reclaim the public spaces for community events such as the Avalon Family Market Day and raise the probability that where young people are drinking, it is clearly and effectively prescribed by our laws.

However, unless this is combined with more resources for the families of students and adolescents, councils and police may succeed only in displacing the problem. Families are the single most important conduit for values and information on alcohol abuse. They are the force that balances the ambiguous and insidious messages of commercial media and the pressure of peer groups. Yet policy does not reflect their fundamental role in prevention. We must increase and strengthen the capacity of families to inform children about and deal with the effects of substance abuse, such as alcohol abuse. The ambiguity and confusion that families often experience can be addressed through initiatives such as the one undertaken last week by St Marks Anglican Church in Avalon. My thanks go to Jaime Dixon, the assistant minister, and Stu Holman, the minister, for organising, catering and addressing a community seminar titled "Drug Proofing your Kids", which was aimed directly at giving parents the tools to reduce the risks their children face from the abuse of drugs, such as alcohol.

The program emphasises that strong intra-family relationships, in concert with well-informed parents and children, are an effective and bottom-up method for preventing substance and alcohol abuse. The New South Wales Government should encourage these types of preventative community initiatives by making funding available to support them or assisting local councils to hold similar events. Investment in the short term may help to reduce the massive burden upon the New South Wales health and law enforcement systems, and equip our young people with the ability to respond independently to the allure of dangerous drugs and dangerous levels of alcohol consumption. It is our responsibility as parents and legislators to protect our children and adolescents from dependency and harm at this exciting and vulnerable point in their lives. Put simply, by empowering families we empower our young people to make choices about their future and to be free from the shackles of the abuse of substances such as alcohol.

Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [12.18 p.m.]: The Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is policy by press release. Sufficient consultation has not taken place on this very serious problem, one that most members of this House would encounter in their community. A comprehensive and consultative approach must be taken to the whole matter. It would be interesting to hear the member for Miranda on how the liquor accord operates in our electorates. The member has been active in that liquor accord. It would be interesting to know the views of the liquor outlets in the Sutherland shire, as well as in the St George area and every other area of the State, but they were not given time to look at and consider the merits or otherwise of the bill. As the shadow Minister, the member for Upper Hunter said, a report on the impact of alcohol outlet density that was commissioned by the Government has not been completed. Had that report been completed it would have been of great assistance to the House.

The consumption of alcohol is a matter of great concern to each of our local communities. The member for Pittwater and the member for Manly have raised problems that share a commonality with the Sutherland shire: their electorates are also peninsulas. I have visited Cronulla mall on Saturday and Sunday mornings and I have seen the results of some of the offences that occur there. We must reform the liquor industry to address the number of outlets and alcohol consumption by people of all ages. It is wrong simply to blame young people; it is a problem right across the whole spectrum and it affects people of all ages.

I have raised a number of times in this House, as have other members, the issue of alcohol-free zones and the ridiculous fine of $20 for consuming alcohol in an alcohol-free zone. Now police will have tip-out powers and will be able to confiscate the alcohol straightaway. But there must also be a sanction, a penalty, for breaching the regulation and drinking in an alcohol-free zone. During the term of the previous Government—going back more than two decades ago—I well remember there was often a riot on Christmas Eve outside the Caringbah Hotel. The area outside the hotel was made an alcohol-free zone so that as soon as an individual started drinking in that area the police were free to act: consequently a crowd stopped congregating in that area.

Mr Kevin Greene: That is De La Salle College.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: No, it is not the De La Salle College; that is around the corner. There was no suggestion that there was any involvement by the college. I can inform the Minister that these were people were not involved in any way with the De La Salle College. The police took preventative action that ensured a riot did not occur. Alcohol-free zones are very important: They enable people to go about their business and go about their leisure pursuits without being accosted by drunken hooligans, who deserve more than simply having their alcohol confiscated; they deserve penalties for their behaviour, which often results in assaults and, at the very least, they often subject ordinary citizens to very unpleasant behaviour. They should face the consequences of their actions. I am very pleased that Councillor Kevin Schreiber will put a motion before Sutherland Shire Council proposing a forum on binge drinking.

Mr Paul McLeay: Good on him. He's a very good councillor.

Mr MALCOLM KERR: The member for Heathcote says he is a very good councillor—an unsolicited character reference, which I am sure he will appreciate. The member for Heathcote said that that is a good initiative by Councillor Schreiber. I hope that all Federal and State members will be invited to that forum. I note that the Federal Government will spend tens of millions of dollars on trying to combat binge drinking. It is important that all the stakeholders attend the proposed forum. The Mayor of Sutherland Shire has put on record her concerns about binge drinking, and this is an opportunity to at least have consultation on the subject.

I believe a number of constructive proposals will come out of the proposed forum, I hope as a result of this bill, which will not be opposed because they are positive initiatives. However, I do not think that even the Minister would boldly proclaim that this is the solution to an enormous social problem. There will be future legislation in relation to this matter, no matter who is in government, because this is not a solution. However, it brings together what are conceded to be some improvements. Nevertheless, once consultation has taken place and once this bill is enacted and proclaimed we will see what the consequences are. No doubt there will be unintended consequences that will have to be addressed and certainly there will be problems not tackled in this bill that will need to be addressed. On that basis, I think this will be a continuing saga. I am hopeful that Councillor Schreiber's actions will lead to constructive suggestions that will further improve the situation.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [12.27 p.m.]: I make a contribution to the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. To give a graphic illustration of the results of alcohol-related violence, which can so dramatically change somebody's life, I refer to an article on the front page of the Border Mail of Friday 7 November. The headline stated, "This is what a glass can do" and a photo depicted a 19-year-old young man who had lost the sight of his left eye as a result of what is called a glassing attack. His victim impact statement, which he read out in the District Court, made for chilling reading, and for those who were present in court at the time chilling listening. An extremely intoxicated man had attacked him in an unprovoked attack. The offender had no memory of the offence after previously being ejected from other licensed premises in Albury. The victim, Mr Philip Pille, told the court that doctors "had managed to reconstruct the jigsaw puzzle that was my eye to this cosmetically almost correct state". He said an attempt was made to reconstruct his eyeball by sewing it together but that whenever he moved his good eye it forced his damaged eye to drag stitches. Mr Pille stated:

Imagine having a ball of barbed wire moving around in your eye socket.

There is also a risk to Mr Pille's other eye. Doctors told him that if his injured eye became infected he could go blind in the other eye. It is little consolation that the offender was jailed for this offence. At the time the judge said that glasses are seriously dangerous instruments and that the offender had acted in a spontaneous manner, but that others must be deterred from committing similar offences. The judge stated that young people who consume alcohol or drugs to the point of being unconscious run the risk of doing serious harm to others. This was clearly a case in point. Understandably, this led the mother of the victim to have very strong feelings about glasses being used as weapons.

So strong was her feeling that she approached Albury's Mayor, Councillor Patricia Gould, pushing for the introduction of plastic cups at all licensed premises in the city. It should be noted that most venues in the city have already started using plastic cups, but obviously this legislation will ensure that those not doing so will take up that practice. We have discussed that move in the past and we certainly endorse it. I commend the Albury Liquor Accord on the work undertaken over the past few years. In 2004 I convened a meeting to counter alcohol-fuelled violence and the vandalism and damage occurring in our main street. I brought together all the related parties, including taxi drivers, the proprietors of the liquor outlets—the hotels, clubs and restaurants—the police, security services and, of course, the council. Much work was undertaken to try to attack at source the problems ravaging the city.

Albury City Council's work in alcohol management was recognised with a national award this year. It received a commendation in the Excellence in Alcohol Management category in the awards given to local government announced by the Minister for Local Government. Albury City Council has introduced a number of alcohol management initiatives and has worked to develop a strong relationship with the Albury Liquor Accord and the local police. Projects that have been developed over past years in Albury have included the introduction of a 1.30 a.m. lockout. Extremely controversial and unpopular as it was at first, it has proved to be an effective control mechanism and people now time their socialising around the lockout. It did not result in a rush onto the streets by people trying to avoid the lockout and transferring to their preferred venue. The fear was that as the lockout loomed people unable to join the queue at one venue would rush to another and cause major strife. That did not occur and one of the reasons is that pubs introduced a nightrider bus. The licensees of the Albury CBD voluntarily contribute to the cost of running the bus, which is available at minimal cost to take patrons home from the time of the lockout onwards. That initiative has proved to be particularly successful.

A no shots after midnight policy has also been introduced by Albury pubs and clubs to target binge drinking. The successful Socialising with Safety campaign was launched in September 2003 to increase patron responsibilities in and around licensed premises, to reduce and prevent the incidence of alcohol-related crime, to increase the public's awareness of Albury's alcohol-free zones and to improve communication between venues, security services and taxi providers. That initiative has been commended as part of the city's overall campaign. Responsible service of alcohol training has also been beefed up and is vital in the work undertaken by the liquor accord. Hopefully, the nightrider bus service will be continued, particularly in the warmer months when more people tend to descend upon venues providing late-night activity and entertainment. As we move beyond the schoolies season into the sports season and the summer holidays these problems tend to proliferate in venues offering live entertainment and serving alcohol.

The Albury Liquor Accord's No Excuses initiative is particularly important. It involves local police addressing the intoxication of patrons in conjunction with the accord. The program was so successful that it was picked by other liquor accords throughout the State. The Albury Liquor Accord developed the innovative fail-to-leave patron education program No Excuse and it was executed through television, radio and in-house advertising telling customers of the penalties if they failed to leave when asked. That program has been adopted by at least eight other liquor accords in the State. The initiative raises awareness of the new laws relating to ejected patrons and was a product of the Liquor Act 2007. It was updated in July this year and redesigned so that it can be used by other liquor accords to reflect changes in liquor laws.

The campaign points out that patrons will be refused entry or will be asked to leave a venue if they are drunk, violent, argumentative, disorderly, smoking on the premises or suspected of possessing drugs. If patrons are asked to leave by the licensee they must leave the venue and the vicinity of the premises by more than 50 metres, not re-enter or attempt to re-enter the premises within 24 hours and not re-enter the vicinity of the premises for six hours. If patrons do not comply with these regulations they are in fact committing an offence. One of the other Albury City Council initiatives that received commendation was security at taxi ranks. The council approached the Ministry of Transport to provide funding for security at the Dean Street taxi rank. That will now be extended to the Olive Street taxi rank and shelter will be provided for patrons waiting for taxis.

Obviously, we are delighted about the work that has been undertaken. However, it is clearly not sufficient to solve the problems of alcohol-fuelled violence that ravage our State. The pubs and clubs in the city centre where people congregate—which also creates problems as people migrate from one venue to another—will find that closing times vary from 1.30 a.m. to 5.00 a.m., with the majority shutting at about 2.00 a.m. The problems continue as young people tend to go out later and later, having consumed alcohol before they descend on the various entertainment venues. I will make a final comment about the consumption of alcohol by youths, which tends to run unabated. Other members who have contributed to this debate have also mentioned this problem. The issues that arise far too frequently on weekends are focused on public parks, where numbers of youths gather to consume alcohol and move around the shopping centres and residential areas creating havoc and indulging in offensive and extreme antisocial behaviour, usually resulting in vandalism and attacks on individuals who happen to pass by either in vehicles or on foot. Gangs also engage in bitter battles.

I would like to see alcohol-free zones extended to public parks, particularly at night, given that some sportsgrounds have clubs where alcohol may be consumed legitimately during certain hours. Declaring alcohol-free zones in some public parks would enable police and council rangers to take action under this bill. However, enforcement in that situation would be very difficult. It is all very well to give people the power to enforce legislation; we must also give them the ability and resources to do so. It is probably impossible for a lone police officer—whether male or female—or a council ranger to take action against a group of 15 or 16 intoxicated youths by tipping out their alcohol. It is likely to result in major confrontation and intimidation. It is probably impractical and it needs further examination. The police also need more resources to take on that responsibility. The measure is well intentioned and I commend its inclusion in the bill. However, further consideration should be given to its enforcement. I look forward to the legislation's implementation in and around the Albury electorate.

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [12.34 p.m.]: In speaking to the Liquor Licensing Amendment Bill 2008 I recognise the very valuable and comprehensive contribution made by the shadow Minister, the Hon George Souris. The Opposition has several concerns about the bill but, as has already been stated, we will not oppose it. The bill seeks to address several measures, including a freeze on any new 24-hour licences, limiting them to 18 hours trading; giving the police tip-out powers, which we have already heard about; and granting the power to extend provisional licences for young people caught using false identities by up to six months.

As the shadow Minister highlighted, the regulations that are due to come into force on 1 December this year are yet to be seen. We have seen an information page on the Internet, but they are not regulations. I understand that even the industry—the Australian Hotels Association and ClubsNSW, both of which will be affected—is yet to see the regulations. This is of great concern. The Government has acted in haste in trying to implement the scheme from 1 December, and it indicates a lack of proper consultation and preparation. I heard the Minister speaking with Adam Spencer on ABC 702 during his wonderful breakfast program. I compliment Adam Spencer on the wonderful program he provides.

Mr Kevin Greene: And the quality of his guests?

Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON: Not necessarily the quality of his guests. I heard the Minister talk about this bill. At the time 50 hotels, clubs or nightclubs were going to be impacted. I now understand that number is 48. Three of them are used by young people living in the electorate of Burrinjuck, although no hotels or clubs in the electorate of Burrinjuck are on this list. My electorate comes very close to the city of Goulburn. Flamingos Nightclub is frequented by the good citizens of Gunning and Crookwell. Similarly, my electorate borders Wagga Wagga, where the Capital Nightclub is frequented, and Orange, where the Standard Hotel is impacted. That is one reason I speak today.

Before the last election, when the city of Goulburn was in the electorate of Burrinjuck, there were concerns about Flamingos Nightclub. Many incidents where police were called to various events were reported in the local newspaper. The newspaper reported concerns about drugs at that nightclub and violence, particularly as people were leaving the nightclub late, and assaults were occurring on the streets of Goulburn. I am not saying improvements should not be made to the system where clubs and hotels have been the obvious cause of the problem by supplying liquor, which has led to these people causing grief in the community. Improvements can always be made. However, under this legislation regulations will come out within a matter of days—in four days—and we still have not seen them. How are hoteliers supposed to respond? If they have to supply plastic glasses for all drinks served after midnight—not only for beer but also wine, and all other alcoholic drinks—how can they be prepared by 1 December? That is a genuine concern and it has been raised by several members in this place.

There are also concerns about the removal of fines for consuming alcohol illegally. That may become vital to the success of the scheme, because the deterrent of the tip-out power might not be as effective as a fine, especially to repeat offenders. That is a real concern. The freeze on 24-hour liquor licences is a transitional measure aimed at curtailing successful applications for more 24-hour licences. Meanwhile the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority reviews current licences and has the power to change licence conditions. It is intended that that power will be exercised to phase out 24-hour licences. The 10-minute time-out scheme has been reported as successful in slowing alcohol consumption.

The time-out is designed so that venues can have discretion as to how and when to use the measure but it raises concerns about a rush of purchases in the preceding 5 to 10 minutes for stockpiling, and bar rage. Those concerns are shared by ClubsNSW and the Australian Hotels Association. That scheme will be impossible to monitor. The time-outs can be enforced by the venues at random or at scheduled times, but how will that really be enforced? The report by Tony Chikryzh on the impact of alcohol outlet density, commissioned by the Labor Government, has not yet been completed. The Australian Hotels Association has recommended that all new licence applications should be frozen until that report has been finalised. I think that is fair enough.

The Opposition does not oppose this legislation. We recognise the impact that glassing and other offences can have on the lives of those who are subject to those horrific crimes. My thoughts go to the young Australian lady who was recently involved in a glassing incident in an upmarket members bar in London. An aspiring young Australian singer, who had a wonderful future before her, was the victim of a very vicious glassing, and her world fell apart overnight. Many domestic violence attacks occur as a result of the stimulus of alcohol. Thisis White Ribbon Week and yesterday was White Ribbon Day so we are all very conscious of the impact of domestic violence on women and children. The number of women and children murdered in domestic violence incidents is at a 10-year high, as we heard in media reports this week. Sydney Morning Herald journalist Ruth Pollard and other journalists contributed to this debate this week. Ruth Pollard wrote:

The number of women and children murdered in domestic violence is at a 10 year high, prompting calls for an urgent review of the state's fractured legal, police and community service systems.

At least 74 women and dozens of children die in Australia each year at the hands of violent men, making up the majority of all murders committed.

But experts warn the real death rates are even higher because of serious weaknesses in the way homicide data is collected.

We know that many domestic violence attacks occur under the stimulus of alcohol, which is becoming more and more available in our community as more liquor barns open up, whether in the western suburbs, the northern or southern suburbs or in rural and regional New South Wales, which is where I come from. The sheer volume of harm—more than 27,000 domestic violence related assaults in New South Wales last year, making up 30 per cent of all assaults reported to police and about 35 per cent of all police work—is simply overwhelming. Police will be trying to monitor these new laws at the same time as having to work continuously with their domestic violence cases.

Then there are other deaths, peaking in New South Wales at a 10-year high of 29 domestic violence related murders from July last year to June this year. I met just this morning with Nirimba TAFE students, and they are extremely concerned about the level of domestic violence. They are studying to be Department of Community Services workers and I commend them for the work they do for their community at this time and for the future work they will do. They will be joining us for question time today.

They are a bright and talented group and they will be successful. They are concerned about the lack of women's refuges, the alcohol abuse that occurs in our community and various other issues, not necessarily pertinent and relevant to this debate, but I compliment them on what they have done and what they will contribute to community services in this State. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation but we remain extremely concerned that regulations will be pushed on to an industry that is terribly heavily burdened by regulation and legislation without the industry having a chance to preview those regulations before they come into operation in four days time.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [12.49 p.m.]: I speak on the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. I thank the member for Upper Hunter and shadow Minister for leading on the debate and for putting succinctly the Opposition's position on the bill. The Premier mentioned the Capital Nightclub in Wagga Wagga when he originally announced the legislation so it is important that I put the views of the club's operators on the record for the Minister to respond to. On Friday 31 October 2008 an article in the Daily Advertiser by Ben Higgins under the heading "Singled-out Club" stated:

Wagga's Capital Nightclub has been singled out as an alcohol-fuelled violence hotspot in a new State Government crackdown.

However, the local nightspot has been defended as a leader in the city's fight against violence on Bayliss Street.

The club was listed as one of 48 clubs statewide, announced yesterday by Premier Nathan Rees, and just one of two in the Riverina to have the new conditions forced upon them.

From December 1 the Capital will have a mandatory 2am lockout, service of alcohol will be stopped 30 minutes before closure, plastic or polycarbonate beer cups after midnight, no shots and a 10-minute alcohol sale time-out every hour after midnight.

Capital's part owner Alec Alabakis was unable to be contacted for comment yesterday but the venue was defended as "proactive".

Wagga crime manager Detective Inspector Rod Smith said the club had made many changes under its own initiative.

"The Capital has been pro-active in the fight against unsocial behaviour and we have seen a noticeable difference regarding alcohol-related incidents," Det Insp Smith said.

"They have been leaders among Wagga's licensed premises to implement responsible strategies.

"Initiatives have already been put to the Wagga Liquor Accord and accepted. I think those strategies introduced by the NSW Government would be more effective if implemented across the board."

Det Insp Smith also said the police had increased patrols around known late-night violence hotspots with positive results.

Wagga Liquor Accord chairman Nic Barnett from the Kooringal Hotel said it was better to work as an industry than to single out one venue.

"We already have a 1.30 am lockout and bans on shots, and that has had a positive impact on businesses," Mr Barnett said.

"I think this shows that the Wagga accord is ahead of the game and we are looking at several other ways we can reduce alcohol-fuelled incidents."

The article says it all. Since the change in ownership of the Capital Nightclub a proactive approach has been taken to managing alcohol and the problems associated with it. Many venues provide entertainment and alcohol in cities and towns across New South Wales and Australia and no-one would agree with the unsavoury behaviour or violence that erupts in the streets. No person would condone or support those activities. It should be about accepting responsibility for one's actions and about people's attitude to the consumption of alcohol. I place on record the correspondence I have received from the Capital Nightclub because it has been proactive, and was named on statistics generated in 2004. Mr Alabakis wrote to me as follows:

Dear Daryl,

As you would be aware via a News Release last week the 'CAPITAL' Wagga was included and mentioned in an unfavourable manner.

It is to question this very inclusion that I submit a sincere request

Indeed the many months of effort and actions taken during this year to address the concerns of 'anti-social' and 'drink related' behaviour in a joint and collective approach from Local Police, Liquor Accord, Wagga Safe Committee, AHA Members Wagga and Capital seem to have gone without notice or appreciation by Offices in Sydney.

The response comment made to this adverse News Release from Detective Inspector Rod Smith on Friday Oct 31st 2008, in the Daily Advertiser Newspaper certainly has been the consistent and collective view expressed to us at Capital by various interested parties involved in addressing these issues in Wagga 'ill-informed condemnation'.

· We are left wondering 'by what measure was the inclusion of Capital justified?'
· What was the criteria used to brand Capital as a 'Hot Spot' of anti-social behaviour?
· What exactly was the benchmark and is this relevant today?

· We submit the criteria used to include Capital is outdated, incorrect & not relevant.
· This is even the view expressed to Management at Capital by our local Police Office.
· The view held to justify the inclusion of Capital is not an insight into what is 'actually' happening today!

· A review if to occur today by OLGR of actual state of events, that was to seek the opinion expressed to Local Police, Wagga Liquor Accord, and Wagga Safe Committee would reveal a truthful, fair and balanced representation.

To this we would be most agreeable. However, this has yet to occur.

Not only has Capital not received any correspondence from OLGR in regard to this matter seeking comment or invitation to a possible avenue of review, the Wagga Licensing Police Office have also indicated their surprise at the lack of consultation

With the support of Police and the Liquor Accord, in a pro-active manner Capital has helped create and instigate programs including:

· Assisting African & Sudanese new citizens with the education of appropriate behaviour at Licensed Venues with the co-operation of the Wagga Multicultural Council. A Letter of acknowledgement is attached.

· Openly supporting the 'Respect Community Campaign' Committee for each Respect Program. As the largest venue in Wagga the awareness made possible through Capital has been appreciated by the Committee. A Letter of acknowledgement is attached.

· With the co-operation of Police, trialed a detailed Drink Structure Policy (voluntarily) to access its effectiveness. After months of seeing positive results of reduced 'anti-social' & 'drink related' behaviour was presented to the Wagga Liquor Accord. The Policy was accepted by the Liquor accord and has been implemented by all Licensed venues within Wagga. A Letter of acknowledgement is attached.

I want to read that letter of acknowledgement onto the record. It states:

To Daryl,

It has been brought to my attention through the media that the Premier Nation Rees has chosen to make reference to the Capital Nightclub, as one of many nightspots to have restrictions placed upon them due to his opinion that certain nightspots in NSW need to clean their establishments up.

To clarify a few points in the Capital Nightclub's defence, I am a member of the Wagga Liquor Accord & approximately four months ago I called an informal meeting with the operators of the Capital Nightclub, Mr Alec Alabakis & Mr Reg Qemal, we met and discussed our concerns how certain operators of licensed premises were not necessarily in our opinion responsibly conducting business in accordance with RSA policy and we feel a united front with all hotels in the CBD of Wagga was needed. At the initial meeting Alec had a lot of suggestions such as, "no shots after a certain time, no multiple purchasing of RTD drinks close to closing times", and many more programs that other councils were conducting to stem the amount of violence and alcohol fuelled antisocial behaviour that occurs.

It seemed to me at the time that these two gentlemen had the community at heart and were genuine in their suggestions and that they were enthusiastic to work with the local police, council and Wagga Liquor Accord. I invited them to a local meeting with CBD licensed premises and positive support from their suggestions were met.

We then in turn put their suggestions to the Wagga Wagga Liquor Accord with overwhelming support, as a group we all agreed at that meeting to support the following

Drinks Policy—
Poly Carb Policy—
Courtesy Bus—
Improved Security Staff structure on street—
Multi Cultural Information for African/Sudanese Community.

I also sit on the Wagga Wagga City Council "StaySafe" Committee, all of the implementation has met with total support from the committee and I believe without the Capital Nightclub's willingness to participate and lead by example which they are doing certain licensed premises would still be complacent in their RSA obligations.

Wagga Wagga is lucky to have nightclub operators of the calibre of Reg and Alex, the way they conduct their business with such a large following of young revellers and they have tremendous support and respect from many industry leaders, police and councils that I have witnessed.

On behalf of the Wagga Wagga Liquor Accord I ask that you give them your full support.

Rob Norris
Wagga Wagga Liquor Accord.

It is quite clear that since the time that the statistics were used, between when the Premier made his announcements and now, much has changed with the service of alcohol, and I support that. I am encouraged by policies that are implemented in one place and adopted by the accord. If there is a drawback in relation to this legislation it is the fact that transport is an issue when these establishments close. Transport is a major issue for regional and rural communities. Indeed, the Staysafe committee recently conducted an inquiry into young driver safety and education. One of the issues raised was accessing safe, affordable transport in regional areas. If ever there was an area where the Government could help to implement shared responsibility agreements and ensure that nightclubs meet their obligations, it is transport. I believe Griffith has a transport option called a Jolly Trolley, which publicans and others fund. Wagga Wagga has a similar transport option. However, more needs to be done in that regard, and I believe the Government has a responsibility to act.

Mr Alabakis came to see me and gave me a complete presentation of his establishment's implementation of the guidelines. I have to say that I was impressed by the positive steps that the organisation has taken. I put to the Minister a number of questions that I urge him to respond to. First, I put to him that the organisation has agreed to meet with the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing to participate in a new assessment, and would like the Minister's agreement for this to occur. The organisation would also like to know from the Minister what information he used to put the establishment on the list. Importantly, it wants to know how it should go about being taken off the list. Businesses that work hard to clean up their image and be responsible in their communities should have the opportunity, sooner rather than later, to be taken off the list. I think that is a fair and reasonable request.

I think the Minister will find that in the areas I represent, including the towns of Tumut, Batlow, Lockhart and others where there are responsible operators, people are concerned about the way in which a licensed premises can suddenly find itself on the list, and about the process involved in the premises having its name removed from the list. The process needs to be transparent and professional, and when concerns are raised they must be responded to. In the document that I will make available to the Minister the industry has made requests. Regrettably, it has not received a response to those requests in the professional manner that one would expect from a government department. If the Minister wants the industry to comply with the legislation, he needs to ensure that his office responds professionally to its concerns.

Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [1.02 p.m.]: Firstly I place on record the great regard I have for people involved in the Coffs Harbour Liquor Accord. They do a great job. Most restaurants, clubs and pubs in the area are part and parcel of the liquor accord. I commend the bill's provisions to the Parliament, especially those that relate to young people using false identification to gain access to licensed premises. As shadow Minister for Road Safety, I believe this sends a very strong message to young people not just that this falsified documentation will not be accepted but that safe driving techniques, and especially the zero alcohol limit, should be adhered to from the time they get their licence.

I want to raise a few matters. First, the Coffs Harbour Liquor Accord has raised a number of issues in relation to pubs and clubs providing security. Many pubs and clubs in Coffs Harbour already have plastic cups because of the dangers posed by glass. But they have a problem with the cost of security, especially when police turn up at their premises and say, for example, "On Saturday night there is a major concert on at the showground. People will probably have alcohol prior to going there, and perhaps on the way back. As a licensed premises, you need to provide more security at your venue because of something that is happening up the road. When the event is over, those people will head back to your licensed premises." Somewhere along the line there has to be recognition that police need to cover those venues, rather than the onus being put back on the licensee of the registered premises.

I know many people who own licensed premises in Sydney, and they have real concerns about the legislation. A lot of these places, such as Scruffy Murphy's, have plastic glasses and try to comply with the liquor accords and other regulations. However, at the same time as they are providing security and using other measures they are being named in police reports and other documents together with places where incidents have occurred. I want to provide the House with some simple statistics that were given to me by a publican in Sydney. On any given weekend, 350,000 people come into the Sydney central business district [CBD] on Friday and Saturday nights.

The area is covered by two police stations: The Rocks and City Central. Each of those police stations has two cars and eight police officers rostered on duty. When such a huge number of people come into the city, it is the publicans who raise the ire of the police. The publicans want to keep their premises orderly but they attract the ire of what I believe is a hugely underresourced police force, there being only two cars and eight police officers in each station. If a major incident occurs, the police stations still have to be manned adequately. The cars can be sent out. But if a major incident occurs at a licensed venue, the licensed venue cops the flak for it.

Policing in the CBD is nowhere near as heavy as the policing in Kings Cross. The City of Sydney council provides buses to empty people out of Kings Cross and into Haymarket and other areas. To cope with this lack of policing, we have a free bus service that takes people out of Kings Cross and perhaps down to Scruffy Murphy's—I mention Scruffy Murphy's because it is probably the only pub I know of in the Haymarket area. At that end of town policing is paper thin, to say the least. I believe there is an imbalance in policing. I was in Bathurst on the weekend of the car races. Around 53,000 people were in Bathurst that weekend, and we all know that up on the hill at Bathurst it gets pretty unruly at times.

[Interruption]

I was not on the hill. But they did know you, Minister. I ask members to consider this imbalance in policing: four cars and 16 police to cover the whole of the Sydney CBD on any given weekend, with 350,000 people there on Friday and Saturday nights; whereas in Bathurst, with 53,000 people over a weekend, there were 600 police. The Minister needs to talk to his Cabinet colleagues, including Minister Kelly in the other place, and suggest that a greater level of policing in the CBD might resolve a lot of these problems. It would also remove a lot of the blame from the licensed premises and give you, me or anyone else who wants to have a drink in some of those premises an opportunity to do so without being faced with the obvious antisocial behaviour that goes on there. Once again I commend my local liquor accord. I commend to the House the information I have given to the Minister with regard to policing levels in the Sydney CBD. I ask the Government to address these issues and to ensure that publicans of licensed premises are not seen as the demons—which often they are.

Mr KEVIN GREENE (Oatley—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for Sport and Recreation) [1.08 p.m.], in reply: The Rees Government is committed to tackling alcohol-related violence and antisocial behaviour head on. The Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is an important part of the Government's response to the problems that flow from irresponsible drinking. I wish to respond to issues raised by honourable members during this debate. Mr Acting-Speaker, I hope you appreciate that I will try not to double-dip in seeking to cover the issues raised. The debate has been going on for just over three hours now and I have been making notes on the various issues raised by members. So I will seek to cover all those issues. I will seek also to ensure that I do not cover them two or three times. While I may not attribute each issue directly to the member who raised it, I hope that members will be able to find a response to their concerns in my overall response. I will try to be specific where possible.

I thank members representing the electorates of Upper Hunter, Gosford, Dubbo, Sydney, Orange, Manly, Lane Cove, Pittwater, Cronulla, Albury, Burrinjuck, Wagga Wagga and Coffs Harbour for their contributions to this debate. The shadow Minister, and member for Upper Hunter seems to be very popular today with his Coalition colleagues. A number of them sought to boost his ego by congratulating him, which is fair and reasonable I suppose. No-one commented on the Leader of the Opposition, but in some cases they were effusive about the member for Upper Hunter. The member suggested that the Government is overregulating and over-legislating the liquor industry.

We need to be clear about this: Alcohol-related assaults, unlike most other categories of crime, are increasing. Everyone has a role to play in reducing the number of assaults—including the horrible business of glassing to which a number of Coalition members referred. The member for Albury gave some very graphic details about glassing. He commented on his concerns and his strong support for the actions that the Government is taking. Both the Government and the liquor industry make no apologies for taking positive steps to deal with this serious, growing problem. The member for Upper Hunter commented on the number of Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing [OLGR] inspectors. I inform him that there has been an increase in the number of inspectors, and there are further increases to come.

Mr George Souris: Have they been deployed?

Mr KEVIN GREENE: They have been deployed across the State. The member for Upper Hunter also expressed concern about the basis for choosing the venues to which the new conditions to stop alcohol-related violence will apply. The Government's decision was based on advice from the Commissioner of Police, who relied on data about alcohol-related assaults provided by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR]. Everyone knows that no statistical data is 100 per cent perfect but the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research is a professional and independent organisation and its work is well respected. The Government relies on data from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, as does the Opposition, for a variety of purposes. The data related to the period from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008, and the Government will continue to be guided by the evidence that is presented.

That should also answer the query raised by the member for Wagga Wagga in relation to the Capital Nightclub to which he referred—I am trying to remember which information applies to which member. Similarly, the member for Manly asked about the evidence to support our approach. The initiatives are based on an approach that is working in Newcastle and Wollongong. The member for Manly then proceeded to cite the results of various programs that had been undertaken in the Manly electorate. He indicated how a number of the measures in this package had been applied and were working in the Manly area. I will not go into the details—even though I have them—on the effect of these initiatives in Newcastle and Wollongong. I repeat that our approach is based on evidence gained from the implementation of those initiatives, with some variations.

The member for Wagga Wagga and the member for Albury referred to the success of the 1.30 a.m. lockouts in their areas, but under the legislation lockouts will now occur at 2.00 a.m. Although there will be variations, the underlying principles remain exactly the same. Those principles also take into account the measures—they have been outlined clearly in recent weeks in the context of the extensive list—that have been trialled, such as the 10-minute drink-free period and the use of plastic and polycarbonate glasses. The member for Manly has raised these issues and I join him in congratulating the venues in Manly that have taken positive steps to deal with alcohol-related violence. Even though Opposition members have made some interesting comments in and around today's debate, I believe the great majority of the contributions have broadly supported the Government's initiatives to tackle the problem of alcohol-related violence. I inform the member for Manly and others concerned about voluntary accords that the new regulations will override any conditions already in place.

The member for Upper Hunter suggested that the Liquor Act already contained sufficient powers for the Government to act in this area. The amendments in the bill will be used to implement part of the Government's package of measures to tackle alcohol-related violence. The Premier has already announced that conditions will be imposed on specific high-risk licensed venues—I emphasise that point—and we will use the Liquor Act 2007 to make that happen. Regulators will use the Act to respond to alcohol-related problems and to venue management and operations issues in order to prevent problems occurring in the first place. Improvements are being made by working cooperatively with licensees. The liquor law measures in the bill focus on preventing new 24-hour licences from being approved, and setting the standard for new licensees that trading for a maximum of 18 hours each day is appropriate. This standard will send a clear message to new licensees about extended trading venues. It is consistent with the objects of the Liquor Act to regulate and control the sale, supply and consumption of liquor in a way that reflects the expectations, needs and aspirations of the community.

The member for Upper Hunter also raised concerns about the consultation surrounding the measures. There can be no claim that the industry was unaware of these types of measures. Regulators have been talking directly to high-risk venues for some time about the types of restrictions and controls that need to be implemented to reduce the risk of alcohol-related violence. The Government also regularly discusses measures to tackle alcohol-related violence with industry groups and individual businesses. As I have said, the measures are based largely on those introduced in Newcastle and Wollongong following lengthy periods of negotiation between regulators and the industry. Ongoing dialogue that brings together industry, government and the community has also guided the crafting of the amendments.

A high-level implementation group will oversee the new arrangements. The group will monitor the operation of the measures in consultation with police and industry to ensure that the objectives are met. It is important to highlight the fact that a very strong implementation group will oversee the regulations. The group will meet each week to monitor the progress of the regulations—particularly the progress of the venues to which the regulations apply. As to consulting and working with the industry, representatives of the venues on the list will be invited to attend a meeting next week with the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing. It is important for the Government to continue to work with those groups.

The member for Upper Hunter asked how the new "tip-out" powers in alcohol-free zones will apply, and how police and council enforcement officers will use those powers. The member for Cronulla also referred to this issue. In circumstances where a person does not cooperate with a police officer or council enforcement officer, he or she can be charged with obstruction under section 660 of the Local Government Act 1993, which carries a maximum penalty of $2,200. Police officers also have strong powers available to them under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to deal with public safety issues.

Existing complaints handling mechanisms in councils can be used in situations where a person has concerns about the actions of a council enforcement officer. This generally includes making a complaint to the council's general manager, who is responsible for the conduct of council officers. Council officers, as public officials, are also subject to oversight by the Ombudsman and the Independent Commission Against Corruption, as appropriate. If those bodies were concerned about a council enforcement officer's use of these powers, the Commissioner of Police can withdraw the written authorisation for a council enforcement officer to enforce alcohol-free zones.

The Government is providing the power for a council officer to be authorised by the Commissioner of Police as an enforcement officer for alcohol-free zones. The council and the Commissioner of Police will have to be satisfied that the council officer has the capacity to enforce alcohol-free zones. I believe the member for Sydney raised this issue. This proposal recognises that situations may arise where a council officer should not attempt to enforce these provisions without the assistance and support of police officers. Councils will be encouraged to work closely with their police local area command—which most do already, as was highlighted by the member for Sydney—to establish clear guidelines and partnerships to promote the effective enforcement of alcohol-free zones and other public safety initiatives.

The member for Pittwater was mistaken when he talked about the existing punishment provided for a breach of an alcohol-free zone. The primary punishment always has been, and will continue to be, the permanent forfeiture of the alcohol in the drinker's possession. The member was also mistaken about the penalties for drinking in a park under the council's control. Where a council has signposted a park or reserve to limit or prohibit alcohol consumption, a breach attracts a penalty of up to $1,100 under the Local Government Act. The member for Sydney was concerned about the need for more transport. Getting people off the streets late at night and getting them home is a key way of stopping alcohol-related violence.

With our new 2.00 a.m. lockout at targeted venues, drinkers must be aware that they could be locked out of a club or a pub and will need to plan ahead and work out how they intend to get home. However, as part of our package we will sit down and work with licensed venues in high-density drinking precincts on providing secure taxi ranks and additional transport, such as late-night buses. This measure could include placing a levy on groups of licensed venues within a certain precinct. Many members, particularly those representing the electorates of Albury, Cronulla, Wagga Wagga and Coffs Harbour, referred to existing arrangements where transport is provided by venues. Certainly those arrangements will be followed up.

The member for Upper Hunter raised a concern about safeguards surrounding the new provisions in the bill for when young people use false identification. Most offences under section 129 of the Liquor Act 2007—which is about when a person under 18 years uses a false identification document in order to gain entry to, remain in or obtain liquor from a licensed premises—are dealt with by the service of a penalty notice. If persons under 18 pay the penalty notice, they will not have a right to appeal the imposition of an additional six months on their P-plate licence period. If they choose not to pay the penalty notice and have the matter heard in the Local Court and if the court convicts and finds the alleged offender guilty, an imposition of an additional six months on their provisional licence period will apply unless they appeal to the District Court.

If an alleged offender appeals the decision of the Local Court in the District Court and the court finds the alleged offender guilty, they will not have a further right to appeal the imposition of an additional six months on their provisional licence. I note that the member for Upper Hunter rightly raised concerns about making sure that we are able to enforce this provision, and referred to the five-year period. If persons under the age of 18 are found guilty and do not have a provisional licence, they will have their name recorded for five years. If they apply for a provisional licence within that five-year period, the recorded penalty will be enacted. I hope that addresses the member's concerns. I believe the member for Pittwater raised that concern also.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: He is often asked for his ID.

Mr KEVIN GREENE: That is why he is not participating in Movember—perhaps the member for Lane Cove should not have either. The member for Upper Hunter also raised concerns about the 10-minute alcohol time-out. The time-out is designed to reduce excessive alcohol consumption late at night, which, as we know, is a dangerous recipe for alcohol-related violence. These time-outs are based on new initiatives being put into place in Newcastle. This is a new idea and will be monitored by the implementation group. It is very much part of the package. Another member made a comment about Schoolies. Schoolies basically commenced last weekend—I see a nod of agreement from the Leader of the Opposition, who has a son close to that age. Other groups will head off to Schoolies this week. Last week I issued a media release and went on radio to remind young people of their responsibilities. I reminded them of provisions in the Liquor Act, such as the responsible use of alcohol and age conditions, and the need to recognise that licensees also have responsibilities in relation to the use of alcohol, which they will enforce. It is important to keep reminding people of that message.

A number of members referred to parents' responsibilities. It is important to remind parents that they have a significant responsibility in educating their adolescents about the use of alcohol and making sure that they reinforce to young people the responsible use of alcohol and legal requirements. I hark back to the use of fake identification. Parents must remind their children of their responsibilities in this area. It is not easy for parents because of enormous peer pressure and the drinking culture. There is no doubt that there needs to be attitudinal change and a recognition that when using alcohol one must be responsible. But the Government is sending a strong message that we will not accept bad behaviour and we will not accept violence within our community, particularly alcohol-fuelled violence. We expect people who go out to enjoy themselves to have respect for their personal safety as well as the safety of other patrons—either inside or outside licensed venues—and we expect them to respect the safety of staff who work in those venues.

I thank the Opposition for supporting the legislation. This package of measures is important. The community has expectations as to how people should behave, whether inside or outside licensed venues, and this package of measures is very much part of working to meet those expectations. The shadow Minister said—and I highlight this point—that in imposing these regulations on the 50 listed establishments we look forward to the day when there are no establishments on the list. That will be a measure not just of the success of this legislation and the regulations but of how community attitudes have changed. It will also be a measure of the cooperation between my department, the police, licensed venues, councils and the whole community as we work to decrease the number of establishments on the list and, most importantly, to decrease the amount of alcohol-fuelled violence within our community. We do not want it, we do not need it and, as a Government, we will continue to work to stop it occurring. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

[The Acting-Speaker (Mr Wayne Merton) left the chair at 1.30 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]