|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [11.03 a.m.]: I speak on the Liquor Amendment (Temporary Licence Freeze) Bill 2009 because my community of Manly has struggled for many years with alcohol-related violence after midnight. I acknowledge that a late-night economy exists and provides significant jobs. However, the community has reached the point where people's lifestyles are being impacted by these problems. I share with the House the experience of the people of Manly because it is critical that the Government realises that certain regions have particular problems. I argue strongly that it is not good policy to provide opportunities for one region but not offer them to other communities.
I understand that the bill offers other communities the opportunity to participate in the temporary liquor licence freeze. Therefore, today I call on Premier Rees and the Government to extend the provisions in this bill to the Manly community. This morning I attended a committee comprising licensees, police, representatives of the council, community groups, the health professions, and other concerned Manly citizens. They endorsed the view that Manly should be the subject of this legislation. I urge the Government to consider that view, because the community is saying, "Enough is enough". A line must be drawn in the sand. Licences cannot continue to be issued when Manly is struggling with significant alcohol-related assault problems.
Manly is a fantastic place but it can be improved, and this measure is critical in achieving that aim. The object of the bill is to impose restrictions on the granting of liquor licences and licence extensions. This bill restricts that object to the precincts of Kings Cross, Oxford Street and the southern central business district. The bill sets a 12-month liquor licensing freeze as of 25 June 2009. I do not believe any retrospective measure is good, so I argue that the freeze should commence on 1 January 2010 or even 1 December 2009, which coincides with the summer months, when many of these incidents take place. This would mean that the legislation would not impact upon existing development applications and allow people who are considering making proposals to council some time to consider their options. They would be forewarned that the rules are about to change. The bill also provides for a freeze on development application consents, and the same concerns apply. Licensed restaurants, cafes, theatres and special events are not affected and could continue as normal in the Manly area.
In his agreement in principle speech the Minister for Gaming and Racing stated:
The freeze on new liquor licences may be extended and applied to other areas should the need arise.
I suggest that the need has arisen and that Manly should always have been considered. The community should have had an opportunity to participate in this debate. The member for Sydney outlined the concerns of her constituents, and Manly residents have similar concerns. The Minister should have included Manly in the extension. Schedule 1 [4] states that the regulations will be able to add or remove a precinct or vary the description of a precinct.
I have written to the Premier asking him to consider extending the licensing freeze to Manly. Manly has made progress through the liquor accord and through measures put in place by council, police, licensees and community groups. The Manly Venue Management Plan, which was put in place after months of negotiation and consensus, has made a difference. I shall return to that issue later.
The area has a culture of alcohol-related problems, and recent editions of the Manly Daily have carried a number of articles about alcohol-related crime and assaults. Indeed, yesterday it reported that Manly venues feature in the statistics as having the highest number of assaults.
As I said, we were starting to see some significant improvements. As part of the Manly Venue Management Plan, Dave Darcy, the police superintendent, was taking a proactive role, a code of conduct was put in place, there was a 2.00 a.m. cessation on the service of alcohol and a 2.30 a.m. closure of venues. However, late last year the Government introduced new liquor legislation, which the shadow Minister alluded to, that changed the very nature of what was happening in Manly. As a result of that legislation we now have varying closing times and varying conditions, and we want to revert to the measures that made a difference.
When the liquor legislation was introduced in 2008 I expressed my concern that the Manly community had reached a consensus and we were moving forward. Since the introduction of that legislation we have gone backwards. The statistics I will cite today show that the Manly Venue Management Plan was working. From 1 January to 31 October 2008 there were only 79 assaults in Manly whereas in the previous year the figure was 91 for the same period. That represents a 13 per cent reduction. Under the plan that was operating locally in 2007, the Steyne Hotel — which made it into the top 10 of the most violent venues in New South Wales — had 14 assaults during a three-month period that year, but under the Venue Management Plan it had four assaults. We ask for the opportunity to revert to the after-hours Venue Management Plan that was agreed to by the licensees, the council, local police, community groups and me, and which was starting to work. If one of the critical measures is crime statistics, it is clear that the Venue Management Plan was starting to be successful.
I believe the Government's intent in relation to this legislation is right. The Government is trying to clamp down on a problem that the community says it has had enough of. I can understand that. The community has had enough, and my community has reached the point where it wants to see material action. But, at the same time, we need to be flexible enough to apply local solutions. In that context, we ask that the Manly Venue Management Plan be trialled for 12 months. We ask for the additional requirement that the liquor licence freeze provided for in this legislation be extended to Manly, rather than just apply to the precincts that have been identified.
I believe if we had a temporary freeze on licence extensions, the Manly community would start to have a sense that the Government is listening. I am not the only person putting forward these arguments. This morning I attended the local safety committee meeting and every single representative around the table agreed on this issue. There were many nodding heads and agreement that this is exactly the sort of initiative we want from the Government. We argue that the Government should consider strongly the calls of the Manly community to extend the jurisdiction of this bill to the Manly area. Certainly the legislation should cover a broader area. I think any community that has similar concerns should have the option of asking the Government to extend to its local area the freeze outlined in the bill. I would be surprised if other communities do not do that. From a northern beaches perspective, I know that my colleague the member for Pittwater also has concerns about the legislation, which he will address in his contribution to the debate.
I argue strongly that the legislation should not be retrospective. Indeed, I believe that retrospective legislation is very damaging. The Government needs to forewarn communities, stakeholders and interest groups that the rules are about to change. In that context, I argue that perhaps the legislation should come into effect from 1 December, so that people and businesses that have invested time, effort and money into putting plans together and lodging applications before council are considered and will be aware that from a certain date the rules will change.
I think it is fair to say that this legislation will not be a panacea. All of us would love to have a silver bullet to solve this problem once and for all. But there is a lot of goodwill on the part of people who are trying to solve this problem, and we need to support them. Something the Government can do is to provide measures such as this. I endorse the concept of the legislation being trialled for 12 months. Certainly a 12-month trial would give us a sense of whether the legislation is making a difference. The community would then have the option either to reopen debate on the issue or to extend the licence freeze if that is in the interests of all concerned.
I ask the Premier to consider strongly including Manly in the liquor licence freeze. There is no doubt that Manly shares the problems faced by the precincts of Kings Cross, Oxford Street and George Street, in the sense that Manly's after-midnight violence rates are unacceptable.
I should acknowledge that just over 12 months ago Manly licensees, the local police and the council got together and put in place a Manly Venue Management Plan that I believe is working and that the statistics suggest is working. As well as extending the bill's provisions to Manly, I call on the Government to consider the Manly community's requests to endorse a Venue Management Plan. That is the consensus position. The key tenets of that plan will enable us to address locally the problems that the Manly community has identified.
This legislation, coupled with the Venue Management Plan, has the potential to strengthen Manly's reputation. From a community point of view I argue strongly that local residents are as one in asking for this problem to be addressed while at the same time delighting in what Manly is.
Manly remains one of the most fantastic communities in the world. We argue that this addition to the legislation would address one of the problems in Manly — which should never take away from Manly being known as one of the best places in the world. We appreciate the Premier's consideration of our request.
|
