|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [11.48 a.m.]: Although the Opposition supports the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, I am concerned about the way policy is being developed in this area and that the Government is looking for headlines rather than outcomes. I relate that back to the local liquor accords that have made a number of positive steps recently, particular in Manly. Alcohol-related violence is widespread throughout the State and is the scourge of many communities. It has troubled the Manly community for the past decade, if not longer. There is a culture in our society of drinking to excess. That is to be condemned and we must look for proactive measures to change that culture and behaviour so that a night out will be not one of fear of assaults while trying to get home but one of enjoyment.
I would happily agree with any measure that would improve the problem. If clear evidence were presented for any such a measure, I would be 110 per cent for it. I certainly believe the former Minister for Gaming and Racing, Graham West, did a good job in relation to the previous liquor bill. A number of strong initiatives in that bill have already started to take effect, and I believe we are on the right track. In Manly we have seen changes in the culture. Significant gains are being made in Manly, not just in relation to curbing alcohol-related violence but in the way the whole precinct is managed. It is important to share these with the House. My concern remains, however, that all the good local work could be undone by a culture of policy by media release, which was well articulated by the shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing. We are fortunate to have the member for Upper Hunter as our shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing. His experience and overall expertise in this area has been of benefit not only to our side of the House but, I believe, to the entire House.
The Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to introduce a freeze on new 24-hour licences, give police powers to tip out drinks in alcohol-free zones, and extend the provisional licences of young people caught using false identification. There are also several regulations contained in the bill, which will come into effect on 1 December. However, as yet the detail of the regulations remain unseen by the very venues they affect. The regulations have not been formally presented to the local liquor accords, which is one of the major concerns I have with the legislation. It is a shame that the Government has not considered it worthwhile to consult in a broad and real way with the industry and the local liquor accord to seek their input as to whether the proposed regulations will work.
The proposed regulations include mandatory 2.00 a.m. lock-outs; no alcohol served 30 minutes before closing time; no glass use for beers served after midnight; limits on drinks purchased after midnight; and 10-minute time-outs in service every hour after midnight. All those measures, in isolation, seem potentially reasonable, but we need scientific evidence to show that they will work. As an example, with regard to the 10-minute time-outs in service every hour after midnight, how will that work? Will it not create congestion around bars? Will there be a green light when drinks start to be served again? This is just a commonsense approach. How will the measure help? If we are to introduce initiatives such as this, we should be able to point to scientific examples showing that they work and why they work. Is it simply a case of the Government saying, "Let's have a go at this; it may well work"? If that is the case, the Government should be transparent about the matter. It should explain to us, "This is the idea we put forward, and this is the basis of it." The Government should also explain who it consulted on the matter. It should not simply introduce legislation and say everyone will have to comply with it, without providing support for it. That is our main concern with this legislation.
Overall the Coalition does not oppose the bill, but we urge the Government to recognise the importance of consultation and cooperation in achieving meaningful reform of the liquor industry and, most importantly, achieving outcomes. Indeed, we should be focused on the outcomes. It is only through genuine cooperation between the licensees, police, council and the local business precinct that Manly has started to have significant success in reducing alcohol-related violence. Without such cooperation, the dangerous drinking culture will return. My concern relates to whether we understand some of these outcomes being achieved in our communities and what are the impacts of some of these changes in terms of the existing arrangements. I believe that over the last three or four months Manly has been leading the State in proactive measures to tackle alcohol-related crime. Six months ago pubs on Manly's Corso voluntarily agreed to trial a 2.30 a.m. closure. That came at a financial cost to the licensees. Everyone said it was about time we did something.
The licensees put their hand on the till, shut it and said, "Let's get on with it; we'll give it a go." Last year the Steyne Hotel banned Jager bombs because the licensee saw that they were being consumed at dangerously high levels. I worked with the Manly Liquor Accord to tighten the code of conduct to further clamp down on antisocial behaviour. Manly Council's upgrade of The Corso, including lighting and CCTV cameras, has also improved security for patrons. In August this year the after-hours venue management plan was implemented, with further measures to improve safety for patrons. The architect of that plan was Superintendent Dave Darcy. The concept involves the whole precinct of Manly being managed as a whole, rather than isolated points being managed. The success of the concept was achieved by everyone agreeing to it, controlled and coordinated measures being implemented across the precinct, including security and transport, and all venues operating in that context.
One might ask: Have these measures been working over the last three months since the plan was implemented? Indeed, they have. As at 31 October this year there were 79 non-domestic assaults in Manly. Over the same period in 2007, there were 91 such assaults. This represents a reduction of 13 or 14 per cent in non-domestic assaults. The Steyne Hotel, in particular, has been targeted and is on the venue list. Prior to the implementation of Manly's after-hours venue management plan in August, there were three malicious woundings. However, since the plan was implemented there have been none. From 15 August to 25 November last year there were 14 assaults at the Steyne Hotel. This year, over the same period, the figure has dropped to four assaults.
A lot of work still needs to be done, but in the Manly community the after-hours venue management plan is working. It is one thing to introduce an overarching "let's change the world and let's clamp down" measure, without the scientific evidence to show that it will work. We need to understand the implications it will have on a community that is starting to achieve outcomes. That is the challenge I give to the Minister. If we chain one hotel in a whole group of hotels that are starting to achieve outcomes, does that jeopardise that hotel? I pose that question to the Minister, without necessarily having the solution to it. When we are looking at this, we need to understand that.
I asked the Manly Liquor Accord what has been its experience in the last three or four months. Doug Booker and Dave Darcy have done a significant amount of work in relation to this. Doug said that in the six years he has been a member of the Manly Liquor Accord there has not been the genuine cooperation and open communication between all players that there is now, and that that is the reason assaults are down across the board. Doug praised Dave Darcy's approach as Manly's chief police commander, which is to "coach people into change, rather than penalise, penalise, penalise", and the consultative style that has come into the accord. I have seen it first hand, and I believe it is starting to work. I do not suggest that all the measures that have been proposed should not be introduced. I believe that all of them seem to have merit in an intuitive sense, but I am concerned about the implications of implementing them without a scientific reference and what that will do to the advances of the Manly Liquor Accord.
Despite the gains in Manly, there are issues that still need to be addressed by the Government. Late-night transport remains a problem. I am pleased that Sydney Buses answered our call for extra bus services to deal with a surge of patrons that arose when venues agreed to the 2.30 a.m. lock-out. However, there is still a shortage of taxis. As a result, crowds continue to congregate and this is often when violence occurs. The local licensees have started to engage a shuttle bus company to drive patrons home. I am aware that the licensees are in discussion with the Ministry of Transport. I am pleased that the Ministry of Transport is constructively trying to achieve a solution whereby, if taxis are not providing a service, shuttle buses can be introduced. It demonstrates that the local community is working very hard to achieve results in relation to these problems. However, according to licensees and patrons, there are not enough taxis to deal with the surge, so we need to find a way to get more taxis, particularly if the shuttle bus solution cannot be implemented as a priority. The Government should be open to options to ensure that the community can get home safely late at night.
I am sure everyone would agree that over the past 10 years there has been a warranted approach to attacking licensees who have recklessly abandoned rules to suit their own purposes and have charged ahead not heeding community concerns and advice, completely disrupting local communities because of their disdain for any rules other than those that suit their purposes. I think there has been a change. I think licensees have started to understand that community concern and have started to respond to it. I certainly understand the community's concern and agree that licensees who continue their disdain for the rules should be put on the list of shame and that onerous restrictions should be placed on them. However, at the same time, a number of licensees are starting to address the concerns, and I believe we need to positively identify them and give them some latitude as they begin to bring about some positive outcomes. What are the measurable outcomes? Certainly violence through assaults is a very good measure to achieve. There are a whole range of measures we could achieve, but whatever they are we should stick to them.
Industry reform and the cultural shift required needs cooperation and consultation with all stakeholders—that process failed in the lead-up to the introduction of this bill. I expected the Manly Liquor Licensing Accord, as one of the largest precincts, to be consulted. It is not hard to go to one of the biggest liquor accords and say, "Here are some of the measures we are going to introduce for those hotels or licensees that are not meeting the required measures." I am sure the Government would have received a constructive response.
The Opposition wants transparency as to who is included on the list. How long will they stay on the list? By what parameters are they being measured? It is difficult to determine what the parameters are. There appears to be some correlation to violence, but it is difficult to defend something if there is no transparency. What are the incentives to come off the list? As licensees start to reach some of the benchmarks will they be taken off the list? Will the parameters be applied to every licensee across the State?
The Opposition urges the Government to look at local solutions that are working and list these examples—Manly is a good case study. There have been dramatic improvements in the Manly precinct and good lessons learned for use by other State accords. Support should be given to achieve the trend that is evident in Manly. Government should be about significant improvement. I appreciate the need to be seen as being tough against violence, and alcohol-induced violence in particular, but if outcomes are achieved in a particular region they should be supported and the solutions promoted. I do not wish to stand in the way of any positive progress in Manly or across the State in relation to this problem.
I commend that the Government for tackling the issue, which has been hidden for too long. The member for Sydney said we have been waiting eight years for the legislation brought forward by Minister West—a good step forward. The legislation is an attempt to start to do more. My concern is to not just look as though we are doing something, but to aim for the outcome. If we are achieving the things that we are trying to achieve then that should be commended, not the press release that went before it.
|
