The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing), on behalf of the Hon. Virginia Chadwick [4.15]: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave of the House to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The bills now before the House include common sense changes to the Liquor and Clubs laws in this State. The changes have benefits for the community and the liquor and club industries.

Many of the amendments were developed from proposals brought forward by sectors of the liquor industry. They are now placed before the House as a balanced package - one in which there are benefits for each of the major liquor industry sectors.

Mr President, I do not intend going into the details of these amendments now, as the Chief Secretary has already discussed them in some detail in another place.

I would like to note that some amendments were made to these bills when they were being considered in another place last night.

Those amendments relate to the provisions concerning the sale of liquor by motels, and some other minor administrative matters.

In particular, Mr President, the liquor bill was amended in the other place to provide that motels must sell liquor through bar facilities, and must purchase their liquor from a wholesale supplier. Those amendments will also see moteliers having to keep records of liquor purchases, and pay a licence fee based on those purchases.

While the Government does not support these amendments, I will not be opposing them here today.

Mr President, even with these amendments, the bills provide some relatively minor but sensible changes to the liquor laws - changes which will bring those laws closer to community expectations of the types of services which should be available from the hospitality industry as we move closer towards the year 2000.

I commend the bills.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.15]: The alternative government supports the Liquor (Amendment) Bill and the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill. Since 1988 the coalition Government has attempted on several occasions to deregulate the liquor industry. The first time was in a wide-ranging green paper that was finally withdrawn. The second attempt was a range of proposals that were lost in the negotiating stages. The Government is now saying that though the provisions now before the Parliament do not amount to deregulation, there are parts of the legislation that
Page 2540
would advantage various operators within the liquor industry that are disposed towards the Government. There is one thing about the liquor industry - it is a very ecumenical sector of the community.

The Labor Party is quite satisfied with the amendments that were made to the legislation in the other House. I have always thought that the line haul freight impost was an absolute disgrace. It has always been Labor Party policy to do something about it. The impost will be removed as a result of this legislation. I intend to make a wide-ranging summation of the debate and the proposals in substance that were made in the other place. The caterer licensing area, local government, hoteliers and, to a lesser extent, clubs have expressed concern at the wide definition of this reform. While the Government in its proposal has now tightened the provision to some extent, there may be a need for an amendment within the legislation rather than in regulation to define a bona fide caterer. But that issue can wait for another time.

The draft Liquor (Amendment) Bill, as we first discussed it, will permit the grant of a liquor licence to a body corporate - currently a licence can only be issued to an individual. I am a little concerned about hotels even being open on Good Friday, but that is a fact of life; we live in a multicultural society. Consequently - and I say it only under constraint - Good Friday is much the same in a multicultural society as any other Friday. The proposal simply allows patrons to consume liquor on the hotel premises without the need to have a meal, but takeaway sales on Good Friday will remain prohibited. Indeed, I walked past the Woolloomooloo Hotel, which is my local, on Good Friday last. I was talking outside to John Franks, the publican. I thought it was amusing and very silly to see the little table that was set up just inside the public bar and anyone who wanted to drink in that hotel - or any hotel - on that day had to order lunch as he or she went into the hotel. As shadow tourism minister I know this issue is of grave importance given the number of Japanese tourists in the Kings Cross-Potts Point area. There is no point in hotels turning away Japanese tourists just because they happen to seek service on a day called Good Friday.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: They would not like the food.

The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN: They go there for the drink, actually. The Government's proposal is to allow trading between 12 noon and 10 p.m. The proposal is discriminatory in that clubs and restaurants can trade all day Good Friday. For the proposal to be of any use to hotels, it should be amended to allow trading between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m., as should related provisions. Monday morning hotel trading arrangements have always been farcical. I do not drink on a Monday morning - at least not before 11 o'clock. However, a traveller who arrives at the Mascot Sheraton Hotel at 10 o'clock on a Monday morning, dehydrated after a 26-hour flight, his last memory of time being midnight in London, would have to be dying for a drink.

Liquor licence fees proposed in the Liquor (Amendment) Bill will impose additional restrictions on the sale of liquor under a wholesaler's licence or brewer's licence where a retailer's licence is held in respect of the same premises. The amendments will ensure that sales of liquor under a vigneron's licence, wholesaler's licence or brewer's licence in excess of the existing limit applicable to the quantity of liquor that can be sold under those licences will attract licence fees at the rate applicable to ordinary sales. I have had some problems with the provisions that apply to motels. As I mentioned to the accommodation association when it lobbied me, a motelier ought to be able to sell a can of beer or two at the reception desk when a weary, much travelled traveller arrives. However, I have to advise the House - it is my melancholy duty to do so, in fact - that unfortunately that will not be the case.

Minibars will be provided. I suppose it will be no great burden, but it seemed to me unnecessary at the time. However, I support the Labor Party's approach to this matter. The parliamentary Labor Party supports the proposed legislation, having achieved the amendments it set out to achieve in the other place. I repeat and reconfirm that the attitude of the Government and the Opposition to the hotel industry is one of ecumenism. Therefore, I have decided I shall not weary the House with any more comments on behalf of the alternative government. Unfortunately, the several pages of my speech unread will have to remain just a part of history, discarded.

The Hon. R. B. ROWLAND SMITH [4.25]: The Liquor (Amendment) Bill and the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill, which amend respectively the Liquor Act 1982 and the Registered Clubs Act 1986, include sensible provisions to permit bona fide motels with ensuite facilities to apply for a licence to provide a limited retail liquor service to their guests for consumption in the motel rooms. The amendments will allow restaurants with access to sanitary facilities in immediate proximity to the restaurant to apply for a liquor licence, subject to stringent conditions; enable the line haul freight component of the cost of beer delivered to country depots to be exempt from liquor assessments - an excellent provision for country areas; clarify the underage provisions of the legislation so that minors may not be served liquor in bring-your-own restaurants; and remove the requirement for a separate authorisation in relation to each function held for non-members on club premises.

The amendments will remove the requirement for caterers to have a function centre or to obtain a caterer's licence, but will require them to have a commercial kitchen; permit hotels located in the Sydney central business district and Kings Cross area to apply to trade between the hours of midnight Sunday night and 5 o'clock Monday morning, subject to meeting the needs of tourists or tourism and the existing quiet and good order provisions of the Liquor Act; permit hotels to apply to trade on Good Friday without being required to sell liquor only with meals, subject to existing hours between midday and 10 p.m., and no takeaway sales allowed; and permit
Page 2541
remaining operational wine licensees in New South Wales to apply to the Licensing Court to sell beer as well as wine, but not takeaway sales.

The bills will also extend the operation of the infringement notice scheme in the legislation so that such notices may be issued for a range of offences. The legislation will make a range of administrative improvements to the law, such as allowing corporate licensing in the Liquor Act. It is important to recognise that there has been an open consultation process on the majority of the proposals in the legislation. Certain of the proposals have been discussed by the Liquor Industry Ministerial Advisory Council over a long period. The proposals were approved by Cabinet in June 1993 and were advised to the liquor industry through the Liquor Industry Ministerial Advisory Council by way of a special summary paper.

The Chief Secretary also issued a number of media releases about the proposals. The Chief Secretary wrote to 11 Government members of Parliament in September and November and to local councils in November, giving them the facts about the proposals and the consultation process. She also wrote in October to all 2,000 hoteliers in New South Wales. The Australian Hotels Association is opposed to the proposals which are of benefit to other industry sectors, and has campaigned on the basis that the proposals are deregulation. However, the proposals contain specific benefits for the hotel sector which balance the package and ensure it has advantage for all peak sectors. The letter which the Chief Secretary sent to New South Wales hoteliers was quite clear and spelt out what the Government proposed to do in respect of changes to the licensing laws. The Chief Secretary stated at the head of that letter that this was "sensible regulation - not deregulation" and I quote from her letter:

I am writing to every hotelier in NSW about proposed amendments to the liquor licensing laws currently being developed by the Government.

I want to ensure that you have the facts - both about the proposals, and the extensive consultation process which has occurred with the liquor industry on the proposals.

The proposals are part of a package of measures to which the Government has given in-principle approval. The proposals are not deregulation, nor is this Government moving to deregulate the liquor industry. The Government is not removing controls and regulation over licensed premises.

Most of the proposed new measures have been brought forward by sections of the industry itself through the Liquor Industry Ministerial Advisory Council (LIMAC) - of which the Australian Hotels Association is a member. The association participated in the meetings and had the opportunity to put the hotels' position to the council.

The proposals represent sensible and relatively minor changes to the law which will have overall benefits for the community as well as the liquor and hospitality industries in New South Wales.

Hotels have received significant concessions under this Government - extended trading hours and the doubling of permitted gaming devices per hotel being notable benefits to hotels. The Government is obligated to make improvements to the law that are of benefit to the whole industry and to the NSW community.

The proposed package contains some important measures which have been advanced to the Government by the liquor industry. For example:

* Changes to "line haulage" in the assessment of liquor fees - with savings to the industry;

* Introduction of corporate licences;

* New underage controls;

* Ensuring BYO restaurants are not allowed to "serve" liquor to minors.

These proposals have been sought by the industry through LIMAC.

As I am concerned to ensure that you have the facts about the Government's proposals, the following information is provided to you.

The Australian Hotels Association has expressed its opposition to the amendments to the Liquor Act. Under this legislation, in special circumstances only, restaurants may apply to the court for licensing where the sanitary facilities are not within the premises but are in immediate proximity to the restaurant. The licensee will be required to be responsible for the sanitary facilities and the facilities will have to be convenient and accessible to patrons. This is indeed a sensible proposal. The main impact on restaurants will be that special circumstances - and I stress special circumstances - which prevent them from having sanitary facilities within the restaurant will not make them ineligible to apply to the court to be licensed.

Sanitary facilities in restaurants will not be compromised. Motels will be allowed to apply for a limited liquor licence. Motels will still be subject to licensing, and applicants will be required to meet the "fit and proper test", and other applicable requirements of the licensing laws. Sales will be limited to bona fide travellers. Sales from room bar fridges will not be permitted under these limited licences. The proposal is deliberately restricted so as to be limited to a retail licence. Motels will be required to purchase their liquor from hotels and liquor stores. The quantity of individual sales also will be strictly limited - no more than two litres - and no takeaway sales will be permitted.

This does not mean that there will be 800 more premises serving liquor. A lot of motels will not want to provide this service. Those that do will have to apply for a licence. The Act, as it stands, makes it impossible for a remote motel, particularly in a country area, to serve alcoholic refreshments to hot and weary guests, forcing these guests to bring liquor with them or to travel to a hotel or liquor store when they want to relax. The bills will insert new sections which provide that the cost of freight on beer from the brewery to the country regional depots of the brewer is not to be included in the amount paid for liquor for the purpose of calculating licence or club registration fees.

Currently, freight charges are included in the cost of liquor as an anti-avoidance measure. This operates to disadvantage country licensees and clubs who have the cost of freight from the city included in the cost of beer on which they must pay liquor fees. There are proposals in the package which will benefit
Page 2542
the liquor industry as a whole, such as a concession to country licensees in removing line haul freight from liquor fee assessment, and allowing for corporate licences to be included. These concessions will benefit the hotel industry. The legislation also includes two proposals of clear benefit to hotels. The first will be to allow hotels to trade on Good Friday, without the current requirement that a meal be consumed.

The AHA proposed in writing and in discussion with the Chief Secretary that the trading hours on Good Friday would not change from between midday to 10 p.m. After Cabinet approved this in principle, the AHA asked that these hours be extended. The Chief Secretary did not agree to this as no justification had been advanced. The second change for hotels will allow hotels in the Sydney local government area and in the Kings Cross area to trade between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. on Monday mornings - which is presently the only period in the week during which hotels are unable to trade.

It should be borne in mind that representations from the AHA led this Government to make a commitment to deny restaurants the prospect of being able to serve liquor at any time without the requirement of the patrons consuming meals. This is a significant benefit protecting the interests of hotels. The drafting of these two bills has been exemplary. As one goes through the bills one is struck by the explanatory notes underneath the major provisions of the bills. I congratulate Parliamentary Counsel on the manner in which these bills have been put together. These sensible amendments will bring the provisions of the Act into the nineties, away from the restricted nature which applied previously. I support the bills.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [4.36]: I met John Walker, Chairman of Johnnie Walker's Restaurants; Brian Allan, President of the Motor Inn and Motel Accommodation Association; Graham Farrar, Executive Director of the Motor Inn and Motel Accommodation Association; Pina Bargenda, Executive Secretary of the Restaurant and Catering Association of New South Wales, and Wayne Krell, Deputy Director of the Registered Clubs Association of New South Wales. I had no direct representations from the Australian Hotels Association but I did have a letter from the association dated 4 May to say that it was bitterly opposed to the amendments. It said that the blood of the Australian hotel industry will be on the Government's hands. I cannot really work out what justifies that hyperbole.

The principal aim of the bill is to give alcohol licences to non-licensed motels and to restaurants without toilets, as well as allowing wine bars to sell beer. I do not favour prohibition; it creates more problems than it solves, but I do find the need to speak about the national drug strategy. It is pertinent to work out whether this further deregulation will have an impact on the national drug strategy and whether it can cope with that. My colleague in the other House the honourable member for Manly spoke of the problems with a 24-hour liquor licence in Manly. I was in Manly not so long ago - it is one of my haunting grounds. I lived in Manly for a number of years after 1965. I have seen how Manly has changed, particularly lately. Manly at night time is a frightening place to be. It has changed quite dramatically. There are a lot of drunks there now. A teenager was killed there the other day. It used to be a lovely place but now it is getting more dangerous. You cannot go to Manly and be safe after midnight.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What nonsense!

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES: Obviously the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has not been there lately. I encourage him to visit Manly after midnight on a Saturday night or Sunday night and walk around to see if he feels safe. A lot of people in Manly do not feel safe. The shopkeepers told me that when I spoke to them the other day. They are disturbed by the way Manly is going downhill. It has had a negative impact on many. There is no doubt about that. Interestingly, I have with me a letter from the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti to the honourable member for Manly. I happened to get a copy of it. It was written in his capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health. He stated that the Government does not support the establishment of a health promotion foundation funded through a hypothecated tax. Although this will have an impact on health, he did not support that. The honourable member for Manly wrote to Michael McEvoy, the Director of the Drug and Alcohol Directive of the Department of Health and the Chairman of the National Drug Strategy Committee.

Amongst other things, he asked what additional provisions, including funding, had been made to minimise the amount of damage done to individuals and the community, and whether this legislation would have an impact. Obviously, it will have some impact. Presumably, there will be additional consumption of alcohol. It is pertinent at this point to speak about the national drug strategy for 1992 to 1997. The strategy document states that the toll of alcohol and drug abuse remains unacceptably high, with an estimated cost to Australia of more than $14 billion a year. The strategy recognises that tobacco and alcohol are responsible for by far the most widespread public health problems, together accounting for nearly 90 per cent of the estimated cost. The strategy mentions an emphasis on harm minimisation, an overall aim to minimise or limit the damage done to individuals and to the community resulting from the use of alcohol and other drugs. On the subject of alcohol specifically, the strategy states that the key national policy objectives which are designed to meet the policy goals are:

Reduce premature death, illness and injury associated with alcohol use.

Reduce the proportion of the population which drinks regularly at levels above that identified by the National Health and Medical Research Council as low risk.

Reduce the incidence and consequences of periodic heavy or binge drinking particularly unlawful supply and consumption among young people.

Page 2543

Reduce the rate of road crashes involving drivers who have consumed alcohol beyond prescribed blood alcohol content levels.

Reduce the rate of alcohol-related crime including criminal assaults, domestic violence, public order and summary offences, and illegal alcohol manufacture.

I have been on the record for a number of years as believing that prohibition does not work and that we will inevitably deregulate and should deregulate because of that. On the other hand - and I have said this in relation to alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and other drugs - where these drugs are consumed by the community, whether legally or illegally, there should be a strong education program from kindergarten upwards to teach young people that these drugs are dangerous and cause harm. I would have thought the Government would be interested in promoting that at the same time as deregulation. We should be stepping up our program of education on the dangers of all drugs in our community. Many young people are taking to alcohol, getting drunk and binge drinking. This is a major problem in our society and we must step up the education program at the same time as we deregulate.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.42]: I wish to emphasise that this is a simple matter of extending regulations, initiated by Minister Anne Cohen from the other place, after consultation with the industry and after taking account of the needs of the customers. Extending the regulations is not deregulation, which Dr Peter Macdonald, the member for Manly, does not seem to understand. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones, on the other hand, who has been prominent in trying to deregulate the use of marijuana and heroin, spoke in this place about tightening up the regulations for the use of alcohol.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: On a point of order: the honourable member has said that I wanted to oppose deregulation. It is the exact opposite. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: On the point of order: there is no point of order. If the Hon. R. S. L. Jones wants to make a personal explanation at a later time he is quite welcome to do so.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! I thank the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti for his advice, but I assure him that I will decide whether a point of order is involved. There is no point of order. The honourable member may proceed.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: The honourable member for Manly began his address in the other House by saying that his concern was based on the impact that this bill will have on the consumption of liquor, and the question of harm reduction. He then said that he had no indication at all that the bill would change the amount of alcohol being sold and no way of estimating whether there would be any change or increase in harm reduction. Having started off on a wrong premise he got worse. He spoke about the increase that would occur in the consumption of alcohol because of the wider number of outlets or wider availability. He said later in his speech:

There is plenty of evidence to show that increased availability of alcohol leads to increased consumption of alcohol.

There is no such evidence. As the range and number of outlets has increased, as well as the time availability, with good controls in New South Wales since 1988 there has been a reduction in the amount of alcohol being consumed each year for the past 10 years. It is ridiculous for Peter Macdonald to argue that because of this change of availability there has been an increase in consumption. Peter Macdonald spoke about availability, consumption and harm reduction. The Government is committed to the national drug strategy. Despite the fact that the Commonwealth Government has withdrawn funding from that strategy by 5 per cent or 7.5 per cent, this Government has continued to fund it strongly because it believes that by way of education, regulation and legislation it needs to protect a large number of young people from the harm that results from alcohol consumption.

The Government has tightened the regulation for sale of liquor to minors and has tightened the penalties for people who sell liquor to minors. On the other hand, in a positive way the Government has amended the legislation to allow hoteliers to make their premises available for liquor-free entertainment for supervised teenagers. The Chief Secretary, one of the best Staysafe chairpersons that this State has ever had, knows more about teenage drinking and the dangers of it causing car accidents than any other member of the lower House ever will. She is more committed to the family and family values than are most other members of the Parliament. She said in her reply that she is a most reasonable woman, and no one could disagree with that. However, the honourable member for Manly does disagree. He spoke about the increased number of people drinking in Manly. My wife grew up on the northern beaches area and the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen has lived there for many years. My wife has said that in the 1970s and 1980s Manly - or the northern beaches - was the drug capital of Sydney. That has substantially changed because of community activity. The incidence of young people drinking in Manly is no better or no worse than in any other part of Sydney.

The Hon. Dorothy Isaksen: It is the 5 a.m. closing on The Corso that is the problem.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: People in Manly are drinking at different times, and that causes the obvious changes. However, the licence to operate during those hours is available for challenge by the community to the local council. Such challenges have not been deemed by the tribunal to have been successful or the premises would have been closed. Peter Macdonald said it is the result of deregulation. It is not the result of deregulation; it is the result of changing regulations, if he wants to be pedantic, as he
Page 2544
sometimes is. All it does is move the time rather than the number of people who are so affected. In a short five-year period this Government has done more than any other government in New South Wales to reduce the number of people who drink. However, the honourable member for Manly said in debate on the legislation:

That is my preoccupation and concern. I addressed this problem by writing a letter.

The honourable member for Manly wrote to the Minister and asked what he was going to do about the problems in New South Wales, but he, the honourable member, did not put forward any solutions. He addressed the problem by writing a letter. He also stated in debate that he wrote a letter to Dr Michael McEvoy, director of the Drug and Alcohol Directorate of the Department of Health, but was surprised when he received a response from the Minister. When someone asks a public servant a question concerning a matter of policy it is perfectly proper for that matter to be referred to the Minister for reply. I, on behalf of the Minister, replied to the honourable member for Manly. The honourable member for Manly suggested that my reply was pathetic but I believe it was fairly clear. The honourable member for Manly also said in debate:

I merely asked a question about the impact of this legislation on alcohol consumption and the resulting damage to the community.

The impact of this legislation on alcohol consumption is likely to be zero on almost all counts. The Minister for Health would have no idea what effect this legislation would have on the number of people who drink. People in the Chief Secretary's Department would know more than most. This legislation will establish the places where people can drink and when they can drink, but it will not establish how much they drink. The Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services quite properly consulted the Drug and Alcohol Directorate of the Department of Health in relation to these proposals. In my reply to the honourable member for Manly I said:

. . . there is no evidence to suggest that the proposals will increase alcohol related harm.

I replied to the honourable member for Manly with certainty and with speed to ensure that he had my reply by the time debate on this legislation commenced. I retract not a jot nor a tittle of what I said in that letter. The honourable member for Manly, in debate, talked about absolving oneself of any responsibility. The Minister for Health, who had dealt with this matter responsibly, consulted a number of people. The Minister for Health is an important part of the national drug strategy in New South Wales. The honourable member for Manly should approach the Federal Government and ask why funding for the national drug strategy has been cut. The honourable member for Manly asserted that this legislation was another move towards further deregulation of alcohol. What he probably meant was alcohol sales, distribution or provision.

This legislation will extend regulations rather than increase deregulation. The Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services, when replying to debate on this legislation, stated that alcohol consumption generally is reducing. Alcohol consumption by young people is also falling. When an amendment was moved in the other place, the honourable member for Manly commented, "I do not agree with the amendment or with the position taken by the Government", but he voted with the Government. I do not understand why he did that; it is up to him to offer an explanation. The honourable member for Manly should make up his mind. This legislation will do nothing to increase alcohol-related harm. The Government should be proud of its record. It has reduced the incidence of alcohol-related harm, particularly for young people. This sensible legislation will increase penalties for any breach of regulations and improve their supervision. I support the legislation.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.55]: On behalf of the Call to Australia group I wish to speak to the Liquor (Amendment) Bill and the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill. We are concerned about some of the provisions in the Liquor (Amendment) Bill. The object of that bill is "to make further provision with respect to licence fees, the grant of licences, penalties, the duties of licensees and minors, and for other purposes". We are concerned about this bill. We agree with a number of the points made by the honourable member for Manly in the other place, but we reject some of the arguments of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. He presented those arguments with some fervour, which reminded me of his previous strong objection to tobacco advertising in this House two years ago when I introduced the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Bill. At first, he vehemently attacked my bill and said it was the most destructive bill that had ever been introduced. The Government reviewed its policy, said it would support my bill and the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti continued his speech, and with as much fervour commended my bill and said what a great bill it was.

Naturally, I am suspicious of some of the arguments put forward by the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. He protesteth too much. I question whether he was expressing genuine concern. If the availability of alcohol is increased, consumption of it will increase. The Liquor (Amendment) Bill will increase the availability of alcohol. It will permit motels to become alcohol outlets, which I do not believe is in the interests of motels, the community or the hotel industry. Even though I am concerned about the effects of alcohol consumption in our society there is no doubt that this legislation will introduce a class of licence that will enable liquor to be purchased and consumed at various premises.

A new licence for motels is included in this legislation. At present motels can be licensed premises but only as an endorsement on a restaurant licence. Patrons in a public restaurant can have alcohol served with their meals, but this legislation will dramatically change that provision. It will
Page 2545
authorise the sale of liquor in the reception area of a motel for consumption by persons who are bona fide travellers and who are accommodated at the motel in suites with their own bathing and toilet facilities. I oppose that provision and will be moving an amendment in Committee to delete that provision from the bill. Item (55)(c) will amend section 24(2) with regard to Good Friday, as follows:

(c) After section 24(2)(c), insert:

(cl) on Good Friday, where the liquor is sold or supplied for consumption on the licensed premises - from noon to 10 p.m.; and

The Minister responsible for this legislation, the Hon. Anne Cohen, has issued her briefing paper to me, which states that the bill will extend hotel trading on Good Friday. The briefing note states:

Hotels can already trade on Good Friday between 12 noon and 10 p.m. It is not proposed to extend those hours. However, the proposal simply allows patrons to consume liquor on the hotel premises without the need to have a meal.

The impression is that this is a minor change, but if a hotel is open between those hours, selling alcohol to patrons who are also consuming meals in the hotel dining room, that would hardly be apparent to a person passing the hotel. This bill will provide for patrons to consume alcohol on hotel premises - the bars will be open - without having an accompanying meal. The honourable member for Manly in the other place said that the Manly community is concerned about the effects of hotel trading along The Corso. I visit Manly regularly; I was there two or three weeks ago to speak at meetings at St Matthews Church and at other churches. The police and the council have been attempting to keep the patrons inside the hotels, but it is obvious their efforts have not been successful. Hotel patrons spill out of the hotel on to The Corso, causing inconvenience to tourists and passers-by at that beautiful holiday location.

This proposal in the bill will mean that on Good Friday - of all the days of the year - the hotel bars will be open. Patrons who may be affected by alcohol may move outside the hotel, until the police, or someone else, come to move them back inside. Of course, it must be borne in mind that during the holiday periods the police have other demands on their time with serious matters to attend to, such as accidents. The Call to Australia group will move an amendment to delete the proposed section from pages 28 and 29. I have foreshadowed two amendments: first, relating to the provision for motels to trade; second, for trading on Good Friday. In defending this proposition I note that the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith said that Australia is a multicultural society and must accept that some of these religious requirements are no longer important. I am not sure whether he was saying that tongue-in-cheek, because Good Friday is the most sacred day in the Christian calendar.

According to the last census, approximately 74 per cent of the Australian population say they are Christians. The proportion in this State is historically higher than the national average. Friday is the Muslims' religious day and that community is totally opposed to the consumption of alcohol. It is totally against their religious teaching. Some Christians compromise on this issue - although I do not - and say that it is not against Christian teaching to consume alcohol. Muslims do not make that concession, but have a total ban on alcohol. The Christian community is concerned about this change to trading hours on Good Friday, and the Muslim community is concerned because Friday is a sacred day. Although the Muslim community honours and respects Jesus Christ as a historical person and places Christ in the special position of a prophet, I am unsure whether it acknowledges Good Friday as a day of special significance, apart from the fact that it is the Muslims' sacred day. In the Jewish community Friday evening is the beginning of the Sabbath. The Sabbath starts at sunset on Friday and goes through until Saturday. This change is not a throw-away amendment. It has serious implications for many in our community and will be offensive to many Christians, Muslims and Jews.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: The honourable member said that it was the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith who made that comment. It was not; it was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I apologise to the Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith. I will correct the comment I made when I was referring to the statement made in this debate by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I remember now that my wife commented to me that it was strange for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of all people to be saying that, given his very strong Catholic belief and practice. I have outlined the two areas of concern that Call to Australia has with this legislation. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones continues to present one of the greatest myths of the twentieth century; that Prohibition failed. I challenge him not just to accept press stories about Prohibition, or television programs or films, but to study the university research material about what happened during Prohibition.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Who got wealthy?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: No, we are not discussing organised crime or the mafia. Prohibition had a purpose.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member will address the Chair and not indulge in interrogatories with the Hon. R. S. L. Jones.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: The objective of Prohibition - nothing to do with organised crime - was to reduce consumption of alcohol and the impact of alcohol in the United States. If that was its purpose, it succeeded. I can present to the House factual university research material which shows there was a dramatic drop in consumption during the Prohibition period and also after it. Once the amendment was reversed and alcohol became freely available, on all the graphs it is quite clear what happened. With Prohibition alcohol consumption went down dramatically. When alcohol was again legalised, when it recommenced, it never returned to that same level.

Page 2546

The Hon. D. J. Gay: On a point of order: I was wondering how the honourable member expects Hansard to pick up a drawing on a piece of paper that starts at this level and comes down to this level. Perhaps the honourable member could enlighten the House and Hansard how they are to interpret that.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member was illustrating his speech.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I will not labour that point now but it is something that honourable members who are genuinely concerned about the influence of alcohol should consider. It is a myth that is being promoted, that Prohibition failed. I am not discussing the issue of crime. There is no doubt that organised crime -

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: You have to link the two.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: No, you do not. The only question was to reduce the consumption of alcohol. That is what they aimed at, and it succeeded.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: At what cost?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Well, we had weak, corrupt politicians and corrupt police in those days. That was the cost.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Do we still?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Is the honourable member saying that because there is always a human weakness we can never have any laws that control products or activities that may cause harm to the community? We have to recognise there are human weaknesses, but do the best we can. I also note that the Liquor (Amendment) Bill contains some benefits. This puts Call to Australia in a dilemma because there are two areas of this legislation that are opposed strongly. That opposition is so strong that we will have to oppose the bill and move amendments to the cognate bill. The principal bill spells out in more detail the procedure for complaints. This information should be made more public so that people are aware of the process, whether they live in Manly, other suburbs or country towns. Quite often when I have met with local councillors, the first thing the mayor will say is that they have a big problem with alcohol and drinking on the streets.

The legislation should spell out how the constituents of a suburb or town can make a complaint. There used to be a local option that gave citizens a right to prohibit hotels from operating in a suburb. That has been scrapped and we now have the procedure relating to quiet and good order of the neighbourhood. I hope that this provision will not make it more difficult for complaints to be attended to; people should be able to make a complaint. Proposed new section 104(1A) will make it mandatory for the board to require that a complaint that licensed premises are unduly disturbing the quiet and good order of the neighbourhood be made or verified by statutory declaration. I do not see that as being a hurdle. Those who are making a complaint will be serious enough to make a declaration before a justice of the peace. That should not be too difficult. The licensing board will have a genuine complaint on which to base a decision as to how a particular premises is operating and whether it is causing undue concern to the local community in which it is located.

I am always amazed at the unanimity with which both sides of Parliament accept legislation relating to liquor. Somehow liquor bills achieve the unanimous support of the Liberal Party, National Party and Labor Party and usually pass through the House without much debate. I wonder why that happens. It might be indicative of the successful lobbying of the liquor industry. It worries me. Since I first became a member of Parliament in 1981 I have noticed that it has been a regular occurrence, and the same type of thing usually happens with gambling legislation. I have mentioned the provisions of the bill relating to Good Friday and that the bill will extend sale and consumption of alcohol on Sundays. We would delete that entire section.

The cognate Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill will restrict the use of the word casino. I assume this has been brought about by the Government's promotion of the casino in Sydney. I have noted that the word casino has become prominent in a few locations, such as registered clubs, giving the impression that a casino was on the premises. I suppose there is a technical correctness about the term casino, because clubs have poker machines and other forms of gambling but are not fully-fledged casinos with gambling tables and other activities. The clubs may have assumed that it was legal for them to use the word. The amendment will prohibit the use of the word casino with a view to helping the new Sydney casino to be successful when it begins operations. The Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill includes a provision dealing with complaints and the quiet and good order of a neighbourhood. Proposed new section 17AA(1A) provides that the board may require a complaint under the section to be made or verified by statutory declaration. That does not seem to be unduly harsh. The bill clarifies some matters relating to the sale of liquor to minors. Item (13) will insert a new section 50(3) in the following terms:

(3) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1)(a) of permitting liquor to be supplied or disposed of to a person under the age of 18 years if it is proved that the liquor was supplied or disposed of to the person by his or her parent or guardian.

I assume this will apply to registered clubs and that the same principle would apply to hotels. When a registered club or the secretary of a registered club or others have been prosecuted, it has been argued that they did not sell the liquor to the minor but sold it to an adult who handed it to the minor. I acknowledge that does happen; the irresponsible attitude of some parents and guardians is to be regretted. The Government should be more serious about this matter. If there is no prosecution of a club or its staff for allowing liquor to be supplied or disposed of to a minor, action should be taken against the adult, if it is a parent or guardian. There must be a procedure
Page 2547
for that to be done. Obviously this cannot be introduced overnight, but there should be warnings that it is illegal for minors to be supplied with alcohol and that it is also illegal for an adult to purchase alcohol and hand it to a minor. If that happens, the adult will be breaking the law and subject to a penalty. It would be difficult to enforce such a requirement, but it should be enforced.

That is the only way to get around the dilemma when adults purchase alcohol and hand it to a minor, even on licensed premises. If that is not done, there will be no real reduction in the consumption of alcohol on registered premises by minors. The cognate bill also provides for an amnesty on existing advertising promoting alcohol. Call to Australia did intend to remove advertising promoting alcohol and other things from areas where minors would be. I assume from this amendment in the bill that there have been practical problems in removing advertising material. However, a three-year amnesty seems to be a little generous. One would think registered clubs could comply with the legislation more rapidly. The proposed new section 49 in part 6 of the bill is as follows:

3 year amnesty for existing advertising

49. The amendments made by Schedule 1(4) to the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Act 1994 do not apply to any visible promotional or advertising matter first displayed before the commencement of that section, until the promotional or advertising matter is replaced or its form or contents are changed or until the day that is 3 years after the commencement of the amendments (whichever is the earlier).

That amendment really says that the advertising can remain for at least three years and will be changed only when it becomes tattered or torn, and then it will be replaced by new advertising material. That was not the intention of the Act. The intention was that the material was to be removed forthwith. This is a compromise, similar to what happened with the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Bill, to keep finding grounds for extensions, allowing loopholes to be used to bypass the intention of the legislation and the intention of the House when it passed the legislation. I am not happy about that development. Members will be aware that Call to Australia has given notice of the Alcoholic Beverages Bill, which is similar to the legislation relating to tobacco and will prohibit the advertising of alcoholic beverages. I hope that in due course the House will give genuine support to that bill, at least in debate and ultimately when it goes to a vote. We seem to be bombarded from all directions by that form of advertising.

The alcohol industry is extremely powerful. If the tobacco industry put up a battle and spent $2 million on attacking me and trying to stop the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Bill, heavens knows what the alcohol industry would spend to stop a bill that would prohibit the advertising of alcoholic beverages. There will be a vigorous campaign to oppose my efforts. Nevertheless, we will proceed when the opportunity presents itself. We accept the Registered Clubs (Amendment) Bill in principle. We oppose the Liquor (Amendment) Bill because of two provisions: one that would extend the sale of alcohol to motels - not in the restaurant of motels but from the reception area - and the other related to Good Friday and the extension of alcohol sales and consumption on Sundays. At the Committee stage I will move the amendments that I have foreshadowed.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [5.19], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I have listened with some interest to the remarks of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile about Prohibition in the United States. It may well be true that alcohol consumption decreased during Prohibition, which is to be expected, but it led to a massive increase in organised crime, with many people making huge fortunes - including, I believe, the father of a former President of the United States. The Hon. R. B. Rowland Smith said that his father visited the United States during Prohibition and said that many people were killed by the illegal alcohol that was sold in the speak-easies at that time. Regulation of alcohol sales should be supported on health grounds. Having heard the remarks of all honourable members, I am sure we will deal with these matters in more detail in Committee and I commend the bills to the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is -

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: On a point of clarification: Mr President, there are two bills before the House. Is it envisaged that they will be voted upon separately?

The PRESIDENT: I will put the questions separately. The question is, That the Liquor (Amendment) Bill be now read a second time.

Question put.

The House divided.

Mrs Arena Mr Manson
Mr Bull Mr Mutch
Dr Burgmann Mr Obeid
Mr Coleman Dr Pezzutti
Mr Enderbury Mr Pickering
Mrs Evans Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Mr Gay Mr Shaw
Dr Goldsmith Mr Rowland Smith
Mrs Isaksen Mr Vaughan
Mr Jobling Mr Webster
Mr Jones Tellers,
Miss Kirkby Miss Gardiner
Mrs Kite Mrs Sham-Ho

Tellers,
Mrs Nile
Revd F. J. Nile

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

Page 2548

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee will deal first with the Liquor (Amendment) Bill.

Schedule 1

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.32]: I move:

No. 1 Pages 3 to 5, Schedule 1, Items 1 to 6. Omit the Items.

These items are headed "Amendments: licences for motels". In my contribution to the second reading debate I stated that the Call to Australia group opposes the proposed amendments because motels will be made into mini hotels, which would make alcohol more readily available and have a harmful impact on an already struggling hotel industry. Hotels provide accommodation and other benefits to assist their patrons.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [5.33]: Although the Government is not completely happy with the amendments moved in another place to these important items, it believes it is not appropriate to fully delete or further amend them. Consequently, the Government opposes the honourable member's amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.34]: I move:

No. 2 Pages 28 and 29, Schedule 1, Items 55 and 56. Omit the Items.

In my contribution to the second reading debate I referred to the whole issue of Good Friday. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and other members who have spoken in debate seem to misunderstand the importance of Good Friday, a sacred religious day that is still observed in our society. Our nation is described as multicultural and many people belong to minor religions, but a majority - 74 per cent or more - claim to be Christian. Both the Muslim and Jewish communities have strong religious practices and beliefs that they exercise each Friday, including Good Friday, a special day in the Christian calendar. The proposed amendment seeks to remove aspects of the bill that affect the sale of liquor on Good Friday and, by extension, on Sundays. Call to Australia also asks whether the vote on this amendment, which deals with a religious issue, should not be announced as a conscience vote.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! A conscience vote is normally brought forward by the Government or the Opposition. It is not a decision for the Chairman in this instance.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [5.35]: I take the point made by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile about drinking on Good Friday. Committed Christians do not have to drink on Good Friday, even if it is allowed. Non-Christians or those without particular beliefs should be allowed to do so. We cannot legislate for one group and make the rest of the community obey that law. We should liberate. Christians who do not want to drink on Good Friday do not have to drink on Good Friday. There is no obligation to drink on Good Friday because the law allows it.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.36]: The issue I have raised has nothing to do with drinking as such. I was not suggesting that Christians would want to drink or not want to drink on Good Friday. However, Good Friday is a most sacred day on which it is important to avoid activities that could affect the religious practices of the great majority of Australians. The minority should respect the majority and not offend them on their sacred day, as would be expected in other nations and cultures. One would not willingly indulge in offensive activities where Ramadan is observed, and even an atheist in Egypt would be expected to respect that country's varied religious customs.

CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member should come to a microphone to enable Hansard to hear what he is saying.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: This issue has nothing to do with the consumption of alcohol by Christians. If the Good Friday liquor trading provisions are passed, the nature of that holy day will change. Such a change could cause offence to people travelling to church services who want to observe the holiness of the day. Good Friday should be blessed with a sacred stillness, or at least a reduction in the usual noise and clamour. Muslims and Jews observe their religious customs every Friday and especially appreciate their customs being respected on the Friday that is so sacred to Christians - Good Friday.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER (Minister for Planning, and Minister for Housing) [5.36]: The Government opposes the amendment. The amendment should be seen in the context of the Act. Drinking is already allowed on Good Friday in hotels and clubs under certain circumstances.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: With meals.

The Hon. R. J. WEBSTER: In hotels, with meals, but not in clubs. The bill seeks to make the division between hotels and clubs more equal without changing present practice. I understand and respect the strong beliefs held by Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, but the Government does not accept the amendment.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Tellers,
Mrs Nile
Revd F. J. Nile

Page 2549

Mrs Arena Mrs Kite
Mr Bull Mr Manson
Dr Burgmann Mr Mutch
Mr Egan Mr Obeid
Mr Enderbury Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Evans Mr Pickering
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Miss Gardiner Mrs Sham-Ho
Dr Goldsmith Mr Vaughan
Mrs Isaksen Mr Webster
Mr Jobling Tellers,
Mr Kaldis Mr Coleman
Miss Kirkby Mr Jones

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bills reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.