Clover Moore, Independent MLA

I strongly support the Liquor Bill 2007, for which there is overwhelming community support. I agree with the thousands of Raise the Bar members that New South Wales has waited too long for this, and the time for change is now. I congratulate the Minister and commend the bill to the House.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [10.51 p.m.]: I strongly support the Liquor Bill 2007, for which there is overwhelming community support. After publicly giving notice of the introduction of my Liquor Amendment (Small Bars and Restaurants) Bill, people from across New South Wales lobbied hard in support of reform. Thousands of people took part in the campaign by signing petitions, sending electronic drinks to their members of Parliament through Raise the Bar, posting comments on blogs, joining a Facebook group or contacting members of Parliament. I would particularly like to acknowledge the brilliant efforts of the Raise the Bar group, representatives of whom are in the gallery tonight. They motivated almost 8,000 people to act. I understand on Monday Raise the Bar got over 500 people to call the Leader of the Opposition in one day to ask him to support debate on this bill taking place this year. Their message is that it is time for change.

I have received letters from across the State, including Terrigal, Port Macquarie, Ballina, Wombarra, the South Coast, Newcastle and all over Sydney, and particularly from Ryde, Lane Cove, Campbelltown, Kellyville, Manly, Bondi, North Sydney, Mosman, Newtown and Waterloo. Support has come from people of different ages. Even one of my 80-year-old volunteers tells me that she looks forward to having somewhere different to go for a drink. New South Wales business—including the Property Council of Australia, the Chamber of Commerce, Westfield, the Hotel, Motel and Accommodation Association and the Chair of the Committee for Sydney—supports reform. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating has publicly expressed his support for reform.

The Sydney Morning Herald particularly and the Daily Telegraph promoted reforms in numerous articles that engaged so many across the State. I commend the New South Wales Government and the Minister for responding to this strong community campaign and putting the public interest before vested interest. The long-awaited Government Liquor Bill and its cognate bills, the Miscellaneous Acts (Casino, Liquor and Gaming) Amendment Bill and the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority Bill, will provide an entirely new process for liquor licensing that is less restrictive, less complex, and more flexible and more affordable. It will also provide for new harm minimisation measures. The bills reduce the 23 restrictive and prescriptive licence categories to six flexible categories.

The proposed hotel licence will have the supply and sale of liquor as the primary purpose and, like my Liquor Amendment (Small Bars and Restaurants) Bill, there is a general bar licence that will apply to small boutique bars. As in my proposed small bars licence, fees for general bar licences will be $500. Although this amount has only been specified in the draft regulation, I welcome the Minister's public announcement that this will be the cost. Small bars currently have to apply for hotel licences, which cost $2,000, followed by an annual fee of $2,500 and require expensive and time-consuming social impact assessments, which can cost around $50,000. Alternatively small bars must apply for nightclub licences, which cost from $10,000 to $60,000. But small bars are neither nightclubs nor hotels.

The new cost of $500 will encourage entrepreneurs to open venues that contribute to the diversity and vibrancy of our night economy. Unlike my small bars bill, the proposed general bar licence does not create a patron limit. My bill included a patron limit because it was specifically designed to allow small bars to enter the market in the existing complex, restrictive and expensive New South Wales system, and to ensure that my small bars licence was distinct from other categories. The 120-patron limit was taken from the Western Australian small bars category. However, the Liquor Bill provides a system that small bars will be able to access. In Melbourne cheaper, more flexible licences encouraged the boutique night economy to flourish without a patron limit, and I support this provision in the bill.

For venues that have other activities such as food service or entertainment as the primary purpose, the bill proposes an on-premises licence. Business purposes will be set out in licences, and for an administration cost licensees can apply to serve alcohol while the primary business activity is not taking place. Like my small bars and restaurants bill, this will allow restaurants to serve liquor without meals, abolishing the expensive and restrictive dine-or-drink authority. While I support this new provision, I note that the authority can put conditions on licensees, including the number of drinkers allowed, and I ask the Minister to make it clear in reply that there is no intention for these authorities to reflect the dine-or-drink restrictions, which only allowed restaurants to serve alcohol without food to 30 per cent of customers, thus preventing them from becoming small bars.

I support the new fee structure for the granting of licences, particularly general bar licences and on-premises licences, which will allow smaller, lower impact venues to enter the market. The fees, however, will be set out in the yet-to-be-finalised regulations, so there are no guarantees. I ask the Minister to assure the House that the Government intends to charge fees that encourage competition. Larger venues, however, may be the only ones able to afford the proposed fees of $2,000 and $3,000 to extend trading hours beyond midnight. Residents and police consistently report that larger venues cause greater impact on local amenity, and I recommend that the Government take this into consideration while finalising the regulations.

I welcome the decision not to extend standard trading hours for Sundays. However I note that Kings Cross and Oxford Street, Darlinghurst, are already saturated by large, 24-hour premises, and can have extended trading on Sunday nights. In densely populated inner-city areas such as the Sydney electorate, large numbers of residents live in close proximity to licensed premises, and residents can be severely affected by commercial activities that operate across such a wide range of hours. For example, 20,000 people live within a five-minute walk from the Oxford Street precinct. Police from inner-city commands regularly report that a significant proportion of crime is alcohol-related and concentrated late at night or early in the morning and on weekends. Indeed, this is what the Minister for Police and I recently witnessed on our walkaround in Oxford Street. I share community concern about the link between extended hours trading and crime and antisocial behaviour.

Proposed standard trading hours should be reduced because 5.00 a.m. to midnight has significant potential to create impacts for residents. Standard hours should allow for operating times that are unlikely to affect residents. Beyond that, hours should reflect the likely impact of a business and its proximity on residents. I note that Queensland Premier Anna Bligh recently announced that opening hours would be cut back to 10.00 a.m. I strongly recommend that the new authority created by the legislation consider cumulative impacts of late night trading venues when assessing applications for extended trading, and I support applying the new community impact assessment to extended trading applications.

I recommend that the bill increase the role of local government in extended trading. Local councils are close to communities and know the complex issues surrounding clashes between residents and venues. Local councils deal with local development applications, distressed residents and vandalised streetscapes, and are best placed to know whether extended trading hours will create impacts. I have concerns that the community impact assessment will apply to general bar licences, which do not have take-away liquor or gaming machines, and they have been the criteria for the application of existing social impact statements.

I welcome the Minister's statement that there will be different processes for low-impact applications and that measures to incorporate assessments within the planning process are being considered. The Minister also says that applicants will focus on consultation with the local community. However, the devil will be in the detail, as provisions in the bill are similar to provisions in the current Liquor Act 1982, which has been a major barrier of entry for entrepreneurs trying to set up smaller, boutique-style bars. The tabled draft regulations do not provide details on the process, although today the Minister told me that what we are looking at here is the framework and that the regulations will provide that detail.

Other licences without gaming machines or take-away liquor—including nightclubs that will have on-premises licences with the stated activity of public entertainment—will have to provide a community impact assessment only if the new Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority requests it. I believe the authority should have the same discretion for general bar licences, rather than making community impact assessments automatic. Small bars, where the responsible service of alcohol can be better managed and that are not in residential areas, should not have an unnecessary burden. Small bars will be subject to a rigorous development application process through local government, including public exhibition and consultation with the whole community, who have the opportunity to address committees, with police and planners participating in the assessment process.

When the Government reviews the bill, I ask that the review include assessment of the legislation to establish whether it successfully stimulated new and smaller entrants into the market, and if it has not, that barriers be identified and addressed. In fact, I recommend that the review be brought forward to two years instead of five because this is new territory and we cannot be sure what will happen. An open, transparent and public review relatively early on would allow us to identify problems and address them appropriately.

I strongly support the proposed licensing process, which creates a new Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority to replace the Liquor Licensing Court's functions of assessing and determining applications. The Licensing Court is formal, intimidating and time consuming, and both applicants and residents find the current situation onerous. The authority will be an independent, expert body, and this will make the process more accessible to all stakeholders.

Similarly, I welcome the proposed complaints process whereby the Director of Liquor and Gaming looks after complaints and has authority to impose conditions on licensees, but with decisions reviewable by the authority to ensure independence. I share community support for maintaining existing provisions for the responsible service of alcohol, harm minimisation, and increased maximum fines for venues repeatedly caught supplying alcohol to minors and intoxicated patrons. Police often report that current fines are easily absorbed by large venues and fail to act as a disincentive.

The director will be able to order lockouts, which will allow patrons already inside a venue to stay but will prevent the entry of new patrons. I really welcome this new power, which will address people queuing and lingering in entertainment precincts, which is a significant problem in my electorate, particularly in Oxford Street and George Street, and in Haymarket. It is where alcohol-fuelled violence and homophobia occur.

Powers to ban products that promote irresponsible, rapid, excessive drinking or that encourage underage drinking are also welcome. I support the requirements for venues to keep incident registers if they have extended trading hours. I also believe that licensees should keep records of incidents during all operating hours to ensure that proprietors and police are able to investigate crime and make connections between antisocial and criminal behaviour and licensed premises. Incident registers are a useful mechanism to help identify and prevent alcohol-related harm, and provide data that can help policing strategies such as the Alcohol Linking Project, which links crime and antisocial behaviour incidents to the licensed premises where perpetrators have been served.

While the bill allows for the creation of binding liquor accords with two or more parties, one of which must be a licensee, through the approval of the Commissioner of Police and the Director of Liquor and Gaming, I recommend that liquor accords be mandatory, as was supported by the 2003 Alcohol Summit. Local liquor accords have significant harm minimisation potential, with strategies based on local conditions designed to increase safety and reduce crime and antisocial behaviour, and I ask that the Government make them mandatory.

I welcome the Minister's announcement of an additional $10.8 million to help inspectors implement and enforce the bill, including support for liquor accords, working with police and industry education programs. Today I met with licensees from the Oxford Street precinct, including members of the Australian Hotels Association, as part of the Surry Hills liquor accord, and they raised with me a number of concerns about the bill. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Some licensees say that the bill is being pushed through too quickly. However, we have been waiting a long time for reform—indeed, since the Olympics—with community consultation occurring almost two years ago. Some licensees are concerned that the 120-patron limit proposed by my small bars bill—which I note the Australian Hotels Association publicly opposed at the time—has been removed. As I have already said, my bill included a patron limit to allow for small bars in the existing complex, restrictive and expensive system, and in Melbourne low costs and flexible conditions successfully supported boutique-style small bars.

The Australian Hotels Association has argued that alcohol-related crime in Melbourne has increased. However, I note that the Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee in the Parliament of Victoria stated in a 2006 report on an inquiry into strategies to reduce harmful alcohol that it does not consider the laws to be "overly liberal". The committee instead suggested that harm minimisation and responsible service of alcohol provisions be strengthened. Recently I called for a street-safe task force similar to that in Victoria, where 50 officers patrol inner-city entertainment zones, enforce licensing conditions, and respond to crime and antisocial behaviour.

Some of the licensees I spoke to today said that the legislation should ensure that restaurants maintain the primary purpose test. The primary purpose test has been a major barrier to restaurants becoming bars, and the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority will be able to impose conditions on restaurants that serve alcohol without food. Licensees also tell me that they do not want residents to be a part of liquor accords. However, cooperation between residents and venue operators will encourage good neighbour policies, and I support this provision.

The city's draft late-night trading development control plan, which will go to council next week, aims to balance the role of late-night premises in Sydney's economic and social life with the rights of residents to reasonable amenity. Low-impact wine bars and hole-in-the-wall establishments will be encouraged. I understand that other councils are looking at similar provisions. The City of Sydney is conducting a number of projects to bring life back to the central business district, including measures to activate our laneways. We are working with international urbanist Jan Gehl to create spaces that people want to spend time in, and consulting residents, community groups, businesses, and cultural representatives and other stakeholders to develop a long-term vision for 2030. Small bars are an important part of these projects, for which there is widespread community support from residential, cultural and business communities.

The proposed changes will be good for tourism, live music and hospitality. Residents and councils across the State are looking for a new night economy for New South Wales—one that is diverse and in line with other cities, such as Melbourne, Auckland, Paris, Florence, San Francisco and Shanghai, to name just a few. I agree with the thousands of Raise the Bar members that New South Wales has waited too long for this, and the time for change is now. Through strong harm-minimisation measures, adequate police resources, and laws that encourage competition in the market, we can have a responsible, safe and vibrant night economy that is unique to Sydney and New South Wales. I congratulate the Minister and commend the bill to the House.