George Souris. Shadow Gaming and Racing. National Party MLA

I conclude my remarks by saying that this is a most comprehensive bill in a most complicated area of legislation. It is not an easy issue for either political or community considerations.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS (Upper Hunter) [8.51 p.m.]: I have pleasure in representing the Liberal and National parties coalition in respect of the Liquor Bill 2007, the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority Bill 2007 and the Miscellaneous Acts (Casino, Liquor and Gaming) Amendment Bill 2007. I preface my remarks with reference to the background of the bills. In 2005 a White Paper substantially redrafting the Liquor Bill was tabled, presented to the public and put out for consultation and discussion. A draft bill also existed at the time. Considerable discussion and debate ensued through to approximately June 2006.

Sometime thereafter the Government decided that introduction of the bill would be left until after the election. That was somewhat disappointing in light of the amount of work that had gone on beforehand. A year or more has passed: an election has come and gone. In winter this year a campaign got underway—particularly through a very supportive press and others, including some personalities in radio—to raise the community's awareness of and engage the community in supporting the prospect of a limited deregulation of liquor licensing laws as would permit the appearance of outlets to be known as "small bars". That campaign ran for some months and the Government took all of the community's considerable views on board to fashion the bill now before us, which is quite a significant departure from the original draft bill that was part of the 2005 White Paper.

The Opposition does not oppose these bills. These are significant and important bills involving an omnibus rewriting of liquor licensing laws. The whole area of liquor licensing is complicated and there is a considerable range of views within the community about the existing legislation let alone a proposal of this magnitude.

Therefore, a bill of this nature deserves comprehensive treatment and forensic examination by both the Opposition and the Government.

The campaign in the immediate preceding months has been conducted mainly through the media but also through an email campaign with organisations such as Raise the Bar and other people. In gauging the tone of those emails two aspects made an impression on me. First, almost all of the representations the Opposition received, whether by email or by telephone—usually by those two methods—were in favour of creating in New South Wales a small bars industry and, to a very great extent, reforming restaurant liquor licensing. Whilst the Opposition did not make too many comments, because it was such a comprehensive and complex issue and no bill had been drafted let alone introduced into the Parliament, a number of representations made by some of those people, particularly in emails, were a little misguided.

I refer to one email that commenced circulating on Monday in a campaign from the organisation Raise the Bar. The email that went out to the organisation's network elicited 19 contacts yesterday and today through to the office of the Leader of the Opposition. Mostly the contacts were by telephone; all gave their name; all gave their telephone number; and one email was in response to the email that was sent by Raise the Bar. The email from Raise the Bar stated:

Last week the new LIQUOR BILL 2007 was tabled in the NSW Parliament for everyone to read, in preparation for the debate by both houses of the NSW Parliament this week.

It's been 25 years since the last liquor bill (when Malcolm Fraser was PM!). Now the NSW Opposition is considering delaying the new bill for another year or more!

This is the critical time for the new liquor laws for NSW, if the Bill is delayed past the next two weeks, it will be held over until next year, and new licences will not be available until 2009 at the earliest.

Click here to LET THEM KNOW it's time for change

Stay tuned to our website each day as we have regular updates as the politicians have their say, and next weekend we will send out another bulletin with the weeks summary and a review for the final week of Parliament, where hopefully the Bill will pass.

We also need to raise much needed funds for the big push so please give what you can. Please also SEND TO YOUR FRIENDS, we need more people like you involved to get this over the line.

My purpose in reading that out is to highlight two significant errors. First, I do not know how anybody could have come to the assumption that between the introduction of the bill by the Minister last week and yesterday morning the Opposition intended to delay the bill—fatally delay the bill, the email almost suggests—to next year, which would cause the true implementation of this new bill to be in 2009. That is the second error, until 2009—at the earliest, it is helpfully pointed out.

Unfortunately, this misinformation is unworthy of the organisation, particularly when it is asking the public to make monetary contributions. It is disappointing that this sort of misinformation is pedalled when, if the organisation had taken the opportunity to wait until tonight, it would have heard the comprehensive views of the Opposition. It would have heard—and I repeat it—that the Opposition has no intention whatsoever of opposing the bills. The organisation may well be disappointed that only 19 respondents took the opportunity to contact the Opposition.

As I said, these cognate bills rewrite liquor licensing laws in New South Wales. A new concept that comes through these bills: the issue of low impact or high impact. The new concept creates a new definition, a new licensing regime, which takes into account at the application stage the question of low-impact small bars. I will refer to that as I go along, but I want to refer for a moment to the timing of the bills. I have some misgivings about the time that has been involved in the preparation of the bills, their appearance in the House and the need to pass them before the end of this year.

The bills are comprehensive. I am disappointed that drafting of the bills by Parliamentary Counsel was not finished until Monday of last week. Two nights later the Minister introduced the bills; they are about two inches thick. It takes a lot of work and a little more than a mere one or two days to digest their contents, especially when those one or two days are parliamentary sitting days and, as members of Parliament, we have a number of obligations, particularly on Tuesdays, involving party meetings and the processes that occur in addition to the sitting of the Parliament. I am thankful that the Minister has an attitude of cooperation and communication. I want to place on record my thanks to him personally and also to the staff whom he asked to engage in communication with me, particularly Mr Foggo and Mr Cox, who have briefed me on a number of occasions. It was the Minister's view that I did not need to be chaperoned even during those discussions, and I very much appreciate that.

In fact I do not know how I could have spoken tonight or drafted a memorandum for the Coalition in such a short period of time if it were not for the fact that expert members of the department were able to discuss various issues with me, answer all of my questions and bring me well and truly up to date on these comprehensive bills. During some of those briefings I expressed considerable reservations that it was originally intended, as of last week, that the bills should be presented to the House and passed without the tabling of draft regulations. It was explained to me—and I certainly understand the argument, although I reject it—that Parliamentary Counsel had prevailed upon the Minister and the department to not necessarily ask for draft regulations, given that the Government had promised the industry that there would be a consultation period, including forums and workshops.

As a result of those considerations, only when it was known whether there would be amendments to the bills would it be possible to draft what would then be the final regulations. Unfortunately, my view was to the contrary. The bills are comprehensive and the regulations would need to be comprehensive; the bills are too complicated and too important for the Parliament to be asked to pass them without sighting the draft regulations. During the Minister's agreement in principle speech a set of draft regulations was tabled. I was shown the draft regulations just prior to their tabling. Obviously I would not have had an opportunity to read the regulations until much later. I thank the Minister for that, because it has avoided engaging in a great deal of parliamentary process. Because of the need to be more transparent and to expose the devil of the detail of the regulations, Parliament should not be asked to write a blank cheque by passing legislation of this nature and perhaps leaving it to some future disallowance process. That is cumbersome, and I cannot recall regulations being disallowed in the 20 years that I have been a member of the House. Perhaps it has happened, and someone will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but it is a rare and unusual process.

So I was even more concerned that the draft regulations should be exposed. Now that they have been tabled—and I am very thankful for that—I take the opportunity to ask the Minister if he could give an undertaking in reply, in good faith and as a matter of principle, that these draft regulations will be for all intents and purposes the final regulations, subject to administrative adjustments, errors or unforeseen matter which may arise in consultation. Having said that, I appreciate that industry will be disappointed that the draft regulations have been tabled. That would imply that if there was bad faith the consultation process is now unlikely to be as fulsome as perhaps it could have been if regulations had not been exposed. Undoubtedly, some in the industry will claim that, therefore, the consultation process is a sham. I believe it is more important, in terms of our legislative process and the role of the Parliament, to expose draft regulations even if it incurs the ire of elements of industry. That is a bit of a dilemma, but I am confident that we will be capable of working through it.

Ideally, the bills would have been introduced and allowed to remain on the table until the consultation took place. However, in one of the consultation sessions I referred to earlier the Minister explained to me, as the director of liquor and gaming did, that certainty of time is needed so that the administrative arrangements in these bills can be put in place. I accept that. Those arrangements include the establishment of the new control authority and the abolition of the old control authority, the Liquor Administration Board—they are not small matters of administration; they are quite large—in the hope that the Act would become operative on 1 July 2008, the intended commencement date. The Opposition has no objection to that and, if anything, is willing to cooperate to enable that to take place. For all intents and purposes I believe that the consultation process and the regulations will be finalised early next year and, therefore, no part of the parliamentary or legislative process will stand in the way of the Act commencing on that date.

These bills have four principal features. The legislation combines the provisions of the Liquor Act and the Registered Clubs Act, while leaving the Registered Clubs Act to deal with the governance of clubs. That is a significant philosophical adjustment. In the past there have been two liquor Acts: the Liquor Act, which pertained to hotels, and the Registered Clubs Act, which contained provisions governing the service of liquor in clubs. This legislation will apply the same liquor provisions to the entire industry. The bill will abolish the Liquor Administration Board and replace it with a new regulatory authority, the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority, which will fold the Liquor Administration Board into the Casino Control Authority. About six months ago I had the opportunity to consult with Mr Michael Foggo and the Minister about what was intended. Happily, that will now happen. It was intended that the Liquor Administration Board would be abolished and its functions would be folded virtually directly into the department.

At the time my concern was that this would expose the various public issues that arise with licensing to direct ministerial involvement and control, and even direct exposure to the political possess, including the influence of the media and talkback programs. Although the Liquor Administration Board arrangements for the governance of the liquor industry were cumbersome and ultimately led to its demise, they were at arm's length from the political process, that is, from the Minister, the department and the Parliament. That was an important aspect of the arrangement. The independence that it was able to exercise was a good feature that should not have been abandoned. I am pleased that the new control authority retains that autonomy. That will serve the Minister and future Ministers, the Government and future governments far better than what might otherwise have been enacted.

The current legislation provides for 21 licences and the bill will rationalise that to six. Even that six include a new regime for licensing of small bars and restaurants without poker machines. The legislation contains other measures, in particular the planning process, new offences pertaining to liquor, the abolition of social impact assessment regime and the introduction of community impact statements. The legislation also proposes reform of wine producer licences and arrangements for surf clubs and other non-profit sports clubs.

The first category of licence is a hotel licence. This will apply to premises where the primary purpose is the sale and supply of alcohol. The term "primary purpose" is significant because in due course that purpose will dictate what category of licence is relevant. Hotel licences will cover a variety of hotels and bars. However, premises that do not provide gaming or sell takeaway liquor will be able to obtain a special type of hotel licence. There will be a two-tiered licence structure, that is, a hotel licence for establishments with poker machines and one for establishments without them. A seventh category would have been appropriate because those two aspects are different even though the primary purpose and the level of impact will dictate how a licence application will proceed.

Standard trading hours—that is, from 5.00 a.m. from Monday to Saturday and 10.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. on Sunday—will be retained. Extended trading hours will be subject to a community impact statement and the prohibition on liquor trade on Good Friday and Christmas Day will be retained. I commend the Government for that, although in the immediate past a large number of extended trading hours applications has been approved. Many outlets already have extended trading hours, and those approvals will remain operative. However, new applications will be subject to the new community impact statement process.

The second category of club licence will apply to registered clubs. Existing clubs will retain unrestricted trading hours and all existing privileges. However, new applications for licensed registered clubs will be subject to community impact statements and applicants will be required to operate during standard trading hours. Again, extended trading hours will be subject to community impact statements. Registered clubs will no longer have a special place in our community. Even though existing clubs will retain their regime, new applicants will now be required to operate on a level playing field vis-a-vis hotels. I am surprised that the clubs industry did not object more strongly to this proposal. Registered clubs have a community identity and it is very important that they have community ownership and a community profile. Until now registered clubs have been very guarded and have fought hard to retain that level of separation. This legislation will water that down somewhat and create a level playing field. I am not saying that is a good thing; I am simply saying that it waters down one of the great differences that has existed.

The third category of licence is the packaged liquor licence, which is issued to liquor stores selling takeaway liquor. The conditions that apply to that licence generally remain unchanged. New licences will be subject to community impact statements, standard trading hours will apply, any extension of trading hours will require community impact statements and the same prohibitions on trading on Good Friday and Christmas Day will also apply. The fourth category of licence is the on-premises licence. This is the area in which the most novel change has taken place. It will replace existing licences for restaurants, motels, bed and breakfast establishments, theatres, universities, nightclubs, caterers, maritime vessels, airports, Governor's licences and so on. Following a community impact statement, applicants will be individually assessed by the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority, and licensing conditions will cover aspects of sales, consumption, responsible service of alcohol and so on.

This licence is not for businesses where the primary purpose is the sale of liquor. Standard trading hours will apply. By that I mean the primary purpose is the supply of food perhaps, or accommodation, but the primary purpose is not to be the supply and sale of liquor. Extensions will be permitted under the same arrangements as previously. Therefore, the sale of liquor will be an ancillary purpose, such as with a restaurant. Liquor sales can be approved, providing the primary purpose remains that of a restaurant. Nonetheless, the control authority may approve liquor sales without meals. That remains an option, but I emphasise the primary purpose aspect.

An on-premises licence will be available to operate live music and entertainment where alcohol is provided. That will replace current nightclub and theatre licences, and restrictions applying to those licences will be removed. High-impact licence applications will be subject to community impact assessments. One of two aspects warrant consideration. The first is that the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Authority will make an individual assessment of each individual applicant. That is an important aspect to note. The regime will be a different from the one we learned from in Victoria. Each individual application will be individually assessed by the control authority and operating conditions—the responsible service of alcohol provisions, the provision of toilets, whatever—will be subject to approval.

It will not be a fast process. It may be a fast process if the applications were dealt with one at a time, but the thought that a couple of thousand applicants would be dealt with in a short time will prove to be illusory indeed, unless the Minister intends to hire a large cadre of staff. That needs to be pointed out so that no-one is hoodwinked in believing that this will suddenly yield up mass deregulation. I am pleased about that aspect because to do otherwise would be a little reckless, as was evident from the outcomes in Victoria. It should also be clear that in passing this legislation, the Government and the Opposition being in agreement, it is understood that conditions for each applicant in an approval will be individually assessed.

The other aspect I would like to refer to is live music. The Opposition has received a reasonable flow of representations from musicians. Of the 19 calls I referred to earlier that have been received over the past 24 hours, I believe most have been from musicians. The Opposition—and the Government also, no doubt—would like more live music and more avenues for musicians to gain experience and to make their names and so on. While the regime will be more permissive, nonetheless neighbourhood and residential amenity and the role of local government will remain. No-one should believe that there will be some sort of carte blanche approach and that live music will automatically proliferate throughout all these establishments. I believe this will remain a difficult area, not because of the music or the need to provide avenues for musicians but simply because of the important matter of urban amenity, especially if some of these restaurants are in suburban areas. That will focus the question of noise, music and neighbour ambience and amenity.

Division 5 of part 3 relates to packaged producer wholesaler licences. Those provisions will apply to wine producers, brewers, distillers and wholesalers and will allow wholesale sales to other licensees. Without going through the provisions in detail, the changes that take place within this licence will be welcomed by the wine production industry. I have a personal interest in welcoming this licence. I have always felt that wine producers have been impeded when they go to wine shows, to country fairs, farmers' markets—

Mr Andrew Fraser: AgQuip.

Mr GEORGE SOURIS: AqQuip, or wherever. They can only take orders, and when they take an order it involves freight and freight costs. That most certainly inhibits orders. Under the new licence wine producers will be able to sell their wines. That is an excellent development. The ability to sell some blended wines and the abolition of the wholesale litre limit on cellar doors will also be welcome. The final category is the limited licence, which will apply to sporting clubs and community functions as well as significant State and regional events. Existing special arrangements for surf clubs will be maintained, including the selling of alcohol at functions. Surf clubs will be able to apply for an on-premises licence to sell liquor at private functions on club premises and be able to hire out the premises, subject to planning issues, local government requirements—and, of course, that brings us back to the same issue that applied to musicians, the neighbourhood amenity.

Many surf clubs are lucky enough to be located adjacent to or be part of a park or beach with some significant buffer zones. Some are even lucky enough to have a shopping centre as the nearest built establishment with a car park. That would be a very good position. Nonetheless, that issue will revolve around the main consideration, which is planning. The on-premises licence will also enable traditional coldies and sippers. Not coming from a coastal electorate I had no idea what those two words meant, but they are traditional and that tradition will be maintained. Clubs that hire out their premises will continue to conduct these events through the limited licence, which will again be subject to responsible service of alcohol provisions and the all-vital urban neighbourhood amenity provision.

I want to make a couple of other general references. They are not specific to any one category and they are not in any order. The Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority will now be the responsible entity for extended trading hours, particularly when they relate to special events. Perhaps the most recent example of extended trading hours in this Parliament was the bill rushed into the House to extend the trading hours for the Rugby World Cup. In my mind the issue that came to the fore in relation to that bill was that it came before Parliament in the very week it needed to become operative. That was disappointing because the industry most certainly would have known four years before the Rugby World Cup the exact time, date and place of the quarter-finals, the semi-finals and the final.

I have long held the view that it is not appropriate to deal with legislation in that way and I did not agree with the bill, which bestowed powers on the Minister without reference to Parliament to approve of these special events. Now that the powers will go to the control authority, the issue will be kept at arms length. The Parliament can take comfort in the fact that, despite the recent legislative turmoil, we now have a better outcome than might otherwise have been achieved. We also have independence, which is important.

Each application will be determined individually. The authority must take into account conditions relating to the responsible service of alcohol and other physical aspects such as toilet requirements, which is one of the flaws that abounded in the winter debate of 2007. Arguments within the community and the media suggested that a toilet somewhere nearby was good enough, but that is definitely not the case. A coffee shop attached to a shopping centre may seek to sell alcohol after hours. Quite often the coffee shop is at the front entrance, partly outside and partly in the corridor of the centre, yet the toilet facilities may be down the side of the supermarket, maybe 50 to 60 paces away, at the far end of the building as the anchor tenant.

It is commercially impossible to keep an entire shopping centre open, with security, so that patrons can have access to toilets. It is more likely that toilets would not be used and patrons would use whatever is available, which would be very unfortunate. Some people may laugh, but it is a very important aspect and a serious concern for those who have had experience in high-profile entertainment areas. We do not want to see that type of behaviour transferred to low-impact establishments, especially in residential areas.

The abolition of the drink-dine authority is very welcome because it abolishes the 70:30 rule: licensed restaurants in metropolitan areas will no longer have to pay the $15,000 drink-dine application fee and licensed restaurants in rural areas will no longer have to pay the $10,000 drink-dine application fee. Genuine restaurants generally have a low impact on their surroundings, which bodes well for the future. However, I would not like to see restaurants that maintain their primary purpose become hotel-type venues that have a high impact on their surroundings after, say, 10.00 p.m. The department will have increased powers to deal with such occurrences, for example, by suspending or closing down businesses and by imposing punitive sanctions. I endorse that measure.

The Opposition also endorses the continuation of self-exclusion, but I do not think it will achieve its aim. The hope is that, after counselling, people will exclude themselves, the licensed outlet will be able to identify them, perhaps from a photograph at the bar, and the system will work well. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it does not work well. Last week an article in one of the Sydney newspapers revealed that self-exclusion by gamblers from Star City Casino was unsuccessful. Indeed, there is considerable evidence to show that gamblers who exclude themselves attend the casino frequently. There is also anecdotal evidence that self-exclusion does not work in the hotel and club industry, so my view is jaundiced.

I am pleased to note the increased regime of penalties, which will mean more involvement for the department in this area. The Opposition endorses increased fines and fines applying to minors. I commend the expanded powers to ban irresponsible liquor products and promotions. In this regard, I refer to packaged drinks, which contain not only quite a bit of sugar but also a high concentration of alcohol. These drinks can contain 8 per cent to 11 per cent alcohol, which is double a standard 330-millilitre to 375-millilitre bottle of beer. We have put considerable effort into the responsible service of alcohol, yet an easy and obvious way to make a significant difference, in cooperation with the other States, would be to reduce the alcohol content of packaged or combination drinks that are so readily available.

Small venues that sell liquor will have problems with patrons smoking and enforcing the responsible service of alcohol because identification checks in such venues will be particularly difficult. It is not realistic to suggest that small venues could afford to employ security people to stand outside the venue and check the identification of patrons. It would be cost prohibitive. We must have knowledge of each applicant and his or her ability to adhere to the conditions that will be imposed, particularly applicants who run small venues with few staff.

I ask the Minister in reply to tell us whether the draft regulations reflect the true Government position, which will stand the test of consultation. The most important aspect of the bills is the planning process, the abolition of the Liquor Administration Board and the replacement of social impact assessments with community impact statements.

I refer firstly to the ongoing criticism of the Liquor Administration Board. It has been said that the process is slow and cumbersome, that it is very expensive, that applicants have to invest in the services of consultants, that the fees are high, and that the board takes up to two years to consider applications. However, abolishing that regime and replacing it with the new control authority and community impact statements will not necessarily streamline the process, as would appear to be the case.

Once an application has been lodged it will take, say, six weeks—perhaps a little less, or perhaps a little more—to be assessed and finalised. The fee will be relatively low compared to the current fee; it will range between $500 and $2,000, depending on the level of impacts and so on. However, the shift of process to the applicant prior to the lodgment will move a lot of time from the post application period to the pre-application period. The applicant will now be required to undertake all these assessments, undertake the consultation, get through whatever local government process is required to obtain a development application, if that is applicable, and then, once all that has been done—and it could be some months—lodge the application and expect a speedy process.

The Government is saying, "We will solve the problem, but we will shift it to the applicant." So the applicant, in completing the required process, will incur pretty well the same expense and play much the same role as that previously played by the Liquor Administration Board. For example, as provided in the supplementary document dealing with the planning process, which the Minister referred to in the agreement in principle speech, an applicant will be required to provide copies of the application and consult with at least the local council, the New South Wales Police Force, the Roads and Traffic Authority, commercial interests such as chambers of commerce, the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, the Department of Community Services, the local area health service, the Network of Drug and Alcohol Agencies, the convener of any local liquor accord, and occupiers of premises in the immediate vicinity—which might sound simple—and consult "voluntarily" with others such as tourism industry representatives. The applicant is also required to advertise his or her application, inviting stakeholders to comment. The process will still involve a significant timeframe in mounting and lodging an application.

I have already stated that I do not believe this bill will take us down the path of the Victorian experience. However, it is instructive to note that the laissez faire approach that Victoria adopted resulted in a 96 per cent increase in the number of outlets, noise complaints increased by 60 per cent in one year—in 2006-07—and assaults increased by 17.5 per cent in the same year. Indeed, the Victorian Parliament is now considering comprehensive legislation to claw back the unregulated nature of what they have created in that State, to in many respects reimpose regulation on the industry. I believe that is an important aspect to take into account. I note that a similar situation has developed in Queensland and that the Queensland Premier has foreshadowed legislation to restrict trading hours in that State's hotels and clubs until, I think, midnight—which is a bold move but a move that obviously has come about because of the considerable social problems that have arisen through bad implementation, or perhaps bad legislation.

I have the benefit of having consulted with a number of organisations on these cognate bills. Clubs New South Wales made representations to me that it is extremely opposed to the lack of consultation on the regulations. I advised Clubs New South Wales that I would place that on the record. The Australian Hotels Association also has misgivings about the regulations "fiasco", as it calls it. The association informed me that it gained an impression from the Government that a level playing field would prevail on the responsible service of alcohol. I note that last week at the annual association awards function the President of the Australian Hotels Association referred to his belief that the Government would provide such a level playing field. I have interpreted that to mean in relation to the responsible service of alcohol and the licensing concerns involving toilets and those sorts of things.

Restaurant and Catering New South Wales is, understandably, strongly in favour of the reforms. The Liquor Stores Association is mostly unaffected by them. The Winemakers Association is strongly in favour of them. Surf Life Saving New South Wales has indicated its support for the reforms, admittedly only by way of a letter. I was somewhat surprised, however, that organisations involved with people who abuse alcohol, such as the Salvation Army and others, did not respond to my request for consultation on the legislation. I thought it was rather uncharacteristic of them to be so silent, and they remain silent. Regardless of whether it is a response to my request for consultation, a response to media comments, or a public statement, it surprises me that organisations such as the Salvation Army, the St Vincent de Paul Society and the Sydney City Mission have all remained silent on the legislation.

I am more concerned, however, that the Commissioner of Police, Commissioner Andrew Scipione, and the New South Wales Statistician, Don Weatherburn, also have remained totally silent on the legislation. They have autonomous statutory powers. They have never in the past hesitated to engage in public debate on liquor issues. Commissioner Scipione's predecessors and Mr Weatherburn took a prominent role in the various forums that have been held, particularly the Alcohol Summit that was held in Parliament House. I am quite surprised that they have remained silent. I think we have been deprived of what I would consider to be very valuable public views that should have been expressed. I do not believe it is too late for Commissioner Scipione and Mr Weatherburn to express their views on the reforms.

As I said, until recently virtually all the representations from the public have been in favour of whatever bill it was going to be—sight unseen, as long as it was favourable. Lately, however, a number of opposing views have started to flow through to the Opposition. I will read one, because it is typical of a number I have received. The House should be cognisant of the fact that the debate is not 100 per cent one way. As is always the case, a different aspect starts to emerge later in the debate. A few days ago I received an email—there is no need to identify the author because it is not relevant—which reads:

Greetings!

I am emailing you in regard to:

1.    the Bill

2.    the debate to be held prior to the rise of Parliament in December 2007

I am emailing all state MPs as you will all be involved in the vote.

I am asking you to make sure that liquor is not more readily available to the public than it already is—eg in cafes.

I am wondering how on earth our state government could even consider the Liquor Amendment (Small Bars and Restaurants) Bill 2007—

which, of course, is not before the House but that is what the email says—

in the light of all the accidents & deaths caused on our roads because of alcohol & because of all the family stress, violence & breakdowns caused by alcohol.

I shake my head [in amazement] that our state government could even discuss making consumption of alcohol even more readily available to members of the public, especially to people who have most likely driven their cars to the café.

I have heard that the move is to allow "small bars and dining areas to rejuvenate areas in the lanes of the inner city to allow smaller venues to trade. This gets away from the large drinking barn like monopoly of big pub industries. It directs drinking to a more balanced and European style premise that can enhance the cultural value of little unused lanes etc in the inner city in particular. Lower consumption in a more cultural ambience would assist in the control of binge drinking and associated alcohol-fuelled violence."

I am sorry but I fail to see how any of this makes any difference to my concerns raised above.

If you intend to vote FOR this proposal, can you, in all conscience, offer me an explanation please?

I implore you to do all that you can to see that this issue is strongly opposed.

I anticipate the bill will pass through both Houses within a day or so, and I am sure similar views will commence to be expressed in greater volume after the bill has been passed. I thank the Minister for informing me earlier today of the amendments the Government proposes to move. I place on record that I will make a couple of remarks in the Committee stage. First, we will support the proposed amendment and, second, I thank the Minister for the consultation. I conclude my remarks by saying that this is a most comprehensive bill in a most complicated area of legislation. It is not an easy issue for either political or community considerations. I hope whatever the views of the members of the public might be, they will accept and appreciate that members of Parliament on both sides of the House have given the bill a lot of consideration and thought.