Liquor Control Amendment Bill 2025
Second reading
Resumed from 17 September.
Hon Kate Doust (3:03 pm): Members might be pleased to note that I will not spend the next 26 minutes and 57 seconds on this bill!
I commend the bill to the house.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn (Minister for the Environment) (3:04 pm) in reply: I rise to provide the second reading reply on the Liquor Control Amendment Bill 2025. I need to get myself in order, for obvious reasons. I presume everything is in order. I thank all members who made a contribution to the bill and for the expressions of support from the opposition. I note that a number of members in the house do not support the bill. I acknowledge the contributions made by Hon Julie Freeman on behalf of the opposition. I believe she spoke on behalf of the Liberal and National Parties. I thank Hon Neil Thomson, Hon Dr Brian Walker, Hon Tim Clifford, Hon Lauren Cayoun, Hon Pierre Yang, Hon Klasey Hirst, Hon Maryka Groenewald, Hon Jess Beckerling and, finally, but not last, Hon Kate Doust.
The Cook government is committed to growing our state's hospitality and tourism economy and supporting vibrancy and jobs. This bill modifies and modernises the Liquor Control Act 1988 by reflecting changing business practices and community expectations. It will improve liquor regulatory processes and make it easier for the hospitality, liquor and tourism industries to do business.
Honourable members raised some points about digital identification, including enabling provisions in the bill being confusing for licensees. These provisions make it clear that licensees will be able to accept digital identification from other states as well as digital drivers' licences that are under development through the Department of Transport in Western Australia. An honourable member mentioned that there were concerns that screenshots of identification will be accepted. However, screenshots are not an acceptable form of identification due to the risk of fraud, just like a photo of a hard copy driver's licence would not be an acceptable form now. Licensees will be provided with educational material to assist them with their obligations on acceptable forms of identification.
Concerns were raised about the Liquor Commission being abolished and the implications for reviews and appeals. It should be noted that the Liquor Commission 's review and disciplinary responsibilities will be conferred on the State Administrative Tribunal. This change will align with many other areas of WA administrative law. SAT is an established body with significant experience, and these changes will be appropriately resourced as SAT will be provided official funding to undertake these functions.
The liquor industry community interest groups, unions, government agencies and the public have been consulted to help inform the provisions in the bill, and feedback has been generally supportive. Industry strongly supports the initiatives to improve and simplify the operations.
We heard from many members about their dislike of liquor restrictions. It is important for members to note that this bill does not amend any provisions that relate to liquor restrictions. I will repeat that: It is important to note that this bill does not amend any provisions that relate to liquor restrictions. This bill includes the banned drinkers register. They are two very different tools. A query was raised about the number of appeals that have been lodged by people placed on the BDR and their success. I advise that the information provided to the member that there have been no appeals against the BDR is correct. There were some questions about why the BDR is in some of the regions but not in Perth. One member—I believe it was Hon Neil Thomson—cited Margaret River as an example of a town without restrictions or the BDR. Members should note that there are significantly disproportionately higher rates of alcohol-related harm, including crime, in those areas where the BDR and liquor restrictions exist.
Honourable members also raised matters around the banned drinkers register and the review reports. The University of Western Australia's reports from 2022 and 2023 are published on the department's website. The executive summary of the most recent Deloitte report is also published on the website. The full reports contain commercially sensitive information from licensees and individuals that would be inappropriate to release in full. This includes transactions and sales data. Members should also note that the reports from UWA were commissioned and completed when the BDR was being run as a voluntary program. The UWA reports informed the future of the BDR, which directly resulted in the BDR becoming a legislative program. The resulting bill was the Liquor Control Amendment (Banned Drinkers Register) Bill 2023.
There were queries about the consultation undertaken with key stakeholders specifically about the BDR. The department undertook extensive consultation with stakeholders in advance of establishing the BDR in different parts of the state. The mandatory BDR has been in place for almost two years now, and the department engages in regular and ongoing discussions with stakeholders who are affected by the BDR in those parts of the state where it applies. It is important for members to note that we have seen a significant reduction in alcohol-related hospital admissions, as well as a reduction in alcohol-related crime statistics where the BDR is operating.
There have been concerns raised by members about Aboriginal people not benefiting from laws like that governing the BDR; rather, they benefit from self-determination. I draw members' attention to the fact that the Liquor Control Act has existing provisions under section 175 that provide the minister with the ability to make regulations to restrict or prohibit the consumption, possession or bringing of alcohol into an area of the state. There are 29 Aboriginal communities across WA that currently have section 175 restrictions requested and driven by the local Aboriginal communities themselves. Our government strongly supports communities taking ownership of harm minimisation and alcohol restrictions, as we find the best results come from community-driven initiatives supported by industry and government.
Since the BDR has been a legislative program, it has worked more effectively by introducing new orders that target individual problem drinkers who commit offences, and that now includes the ability for the police to issue an order for alcohol-related family domestic violence. There is no other order in the Liquor Control Act that targets alcohol-related family violence outside of a licensed premises. The Cook Labor government is committed to tackling family violence and the BDR is one of those measures. The BDR improves health outcomes for individuals because medical professionals can also seek a banned drinker order for someone suffering from alcohol-related harm, particularly individuals who are drinking excessively while pregnant. As honourable members have mentioned, fetal alcohol syndrome is a major concern in many of these regions.
While the changes in the bill reflect and respond to industry feedback about making it easier to do business in WA, it also reflects the act's primary objectives by including important reforms to support the minimisation of alcohol-related harm that we see in poor health outcomes, crime rates, community breakdown and, sadly, family and domestic violence. Tackling alcohol harm is a longstanding and complex issue and not something that the state government can achieve alone. Collaboration is required between licensees, industry groups, WA police and other government agencies, support service providers, local governments and the entire Western Australian community. The banned drinkers register is a targeted alcohol restriction measure that is designed to operate as a harm-minimisation tool in areas where there is heightened misuse of alcohol and impacts on individuals and communities.
We take this opportunity to commend the licensees, liquor accords, local governments and industry peak bodies for their public support of the banned drinkers register. We were pleased to support the work being done by the communities in the Kimberley, Pilbara and Goldfields regions and Carnarvon and Gascoyne Junction by implementing reforms in late 2023 to enable the time-limited trial of a mandatory banned drinkers register in these areas. As members might be aware, the banned drinkers register is currently scheduled to conclude via a sunset clause on 13 December of this year. It appears the impact of the BDR and other alcohol restrictions has been positive and almost immediate. The bill seeks to make the banned drinkers register a permanent program so that it can continue to play an important part of the response to alcohol harm. A permanent banned drinkers register will provide certainty for stakeholders, support the implementation of improvements to the register over time and underpin support services and harm-minimisation strategies in these communities. The state-government recognises that alcohol-related harm is a problem that will not go away overnight. A whole-of-community and government approach is needed, and we will continue to look for ways to tackle this complex issue.
On that basis I commend the bill to the house and seek members' support for it.
Question put and passed.
Bill read a second time.
Committee of the whole
The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Dr Parwinder Kaur) in the chair; Hon Matthew Swinbourn (Minister for the Environment) in charge of the bill.
Clause 1: Short title
Hon Julie Freeman: I want to start just by checking who was consulted in the drafting of this bill.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn : As I said in my reply to the second reading debate, the liquor industry, community, interest groups, unions, the public and government agencies have been consulted about this bill. I can be a bit more specific. Public consultation was carried out between 22 November 2024 and 23 January 2025 through the Department of Local Government Support and Cultural Industries, now Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety, through a process paper called The Next Chapter of WA's Liquor Laws – have your say, along with stakeholder surveys. A consultation was undertaken with the Roman Catholic Church and the Returned and Services League of Western Australia on specific matters such as trading hours. The Liquor Commission and the State Administrative Tribunal were consulted about conferring the Liquor Commission's review and disciplinary powers to SAT. The Gaming and Wagering Commission was consulted about changes relating to liquor licensing, as was the Director of Liquor Licensing. The three working groups consisting of key stakeholders also provided targeted feedback on reform topics. Those three groups were an industry working group, a harm–minimisation working group and a government working group.
The members of the industry working group were Australian Grape & Wine Incorporated; Australian Hotels Association; Business Improvement Group of Northbridge; Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia; Cider Australia; City of Perth; Clubs WA; Coles (Liquorland); Crown Perth; Endeavour Group; Events Industry Association; Liquor Stores Association of WA, otherwise known as the LSA; Restaurant & Catering Industry Association; Retail Drinks Australia; Small Bar Association of WA; WA Distillers Guild; WA Music; WA Nightclub Association; and Wines of WA.
The harm–minimisation working group included the Aboriginal Legal Service; Alcohol and Drug Foundation; Bloodwood Tree Association; Cancer Council WA, alcohol programs team; Foundation for Alcohol Research & Education, otherwise known as FARE; Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services; Kimberley Mental Health and Drug Service; Local Drug Action Groups Incorporated; Marra Worra Worra Aboriginal Corporation; McCusker Centre for Action on Alcohol and Youth; Hope Community Services, formerly Mission Australia; Moorditj Koort Aboriginal Corporation; National Drug Research Institute; public health; Ruah Community Services; the Salvation Army Western Australia; Southern Aboriginal Corporation; St John WA; The Kids Research Institute Australia; WA Council of Social Services, or WACOSS; WA Network of Alcohol & other Drug Agencies; and WA Association for Mental Health.
The government working group included the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board; Department of Communities; Department of Education's road safety and drug education branches; Department of Health; Department of Justice; Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety, as it is now known; Department of Mines, Petroleum and Exploration, formally DEMIRS; Department of the Premier and Cabinet; Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage; the former Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation, which I think has a different title now; Mental Health Commission; Road Safety Commission; Small Business Development Corporation; WA Country Health Service; Western Australian Local Government Association; and the Western Australia Police Force.
Hon Julie Freeman: Thank you, minister, for that very comprehensive list. Just for my clarification, were those organisations consulted on the contents of the bill before or after it was drafted?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I am told that, primarily, some were consulted before and some were consulted after the drafting of the bill.
Hon Julie Freeman: The minister, in his second reading speech in reply, spoke about the BDR being a time-limited trial, and he also spoke of the reports that are available on the department's website. Which of the reports that the minister listed was actually an evaluation of the time-limited trial of the BDR?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: It was the Deloitte report.
Hon Neil Thomson: When the Returned and Services League of Australia (RSL) was consulted, was it aware of the proposed changes to the trading hours on Anzac Day?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Yes, member.
Hon Neil Thomson: Given that today we have seen concerns raised about the rollback of the trading hours on Anzac Day from 12 noon to I believe 10:00 am, what was the government's response to the RSL's concerns? Firstly, were those concerns raised at the time, and, secondly, what was the government's response for the justification for rolling back the trading hours by two hours on Anzac Day?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: During the consultation in 2003, the RSL was approached for feedback on the proposed changes to Anzac Day trading hours, and it indicated that it thought there should be no changes to the status quo on Anzac Day—in other words, venues should continue to open at midday. I might qualify that and say that venues, as a matter of right, can open at midday, but they could open earlier than that if they make an application for earlier opening. Therefore, it is not the case that trading before 12 noon has been sacrosanct for ever and a day; that has not been the case at all. The position we have now landed on is that they can open at 10:00 am as a matter of right, and, in fact, they can open earlier than that after a successful application to the Director of Liquor Licensing if they can make the case for that.
After considering stakeholder feedback, the bill proposes an increase to trading hours from 10:00 am on Anzac Day rather than 6:00 am. I think the original proposal was for it to be from 6:00 am rather than 10:00 am, so we did take the feedback on board, including feedback given from the RSL that that would potentially interfere with when dawn services were underway.
To open prior to 10:00 am, all licensees will still have to apply for an extended trading permit, and it will only be granted if the request complies with the relevant policy. What we are doing here is bringing trading hours into line with Sunday trading hours, while still recognising the significance of the day. This will reduce complexity for businesses and offer the community more choice and flexibility.
Hon Neil Thomson: Thank you, minister, for the little bit of background on that. I note Hon Paul Papalia, the minister, is obviously a veteran himself, and he no doubt would have some connection to the RSL, I would have thought, after his service, and, of course, we thank him for his service to Australia.
Until today, I was not aware of the level of objection, and maybe if I had been aware, I might have had even more to say about it in my speech in the second reading debate. As the minister knows, I said I supported the bill, notwithstanding some of my concerns about other aspects, but this was not one of the concerns I had. However, I see it has raised concerns. Given that dawn services, as we know, are such an important part of Anzac Day, and there are other sacred things that happen that day, I think it is pretty much well agreed to by all members of the community how important Anzac Day is across the board.
Was the minister directly involved in any of those discussions with the RSL prior to the decision being made to change the trading hours from I think the minister said 6:00 am to 10:00 am, instead of 12 noon? Was the minister involved in that discussion?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Member, it is important to understand that Minister Paul Papalia has only become the minister responsible since the election. Obviously, a lot of this work happened pre the election because I set that out in the consultation in response to Hon Julie Freeman's point.
I am advised that the minister has met with the RSL since he became the Minister for Racing and Gaming, and he has had meetings. As the member quite rightly pointed out, and to make a more broader point, the RSL is a voice for veterans, and it is a very powerful and legitimate voice, but not all veterans agree on everything. That is obviously indicative of the fact that, as the member identified, Hon Paul Papalia is a veteran himself and has served this country and he has a different view on this matter to the RSL's view. That view was expressed, I think, in the reporting in the paper today. Reasonable minds will take different views on these things. As I say, through that consultation process, the government did bring it to 10:00 am rather than the original proposal for 6:00 am. That was expressed in a report in the paper today. Reasonable minds will take different views on these particular things. As I say, through that consultation process the government brought it to 10:00 am rather than the original proposal, which was for 6:00 am.
Hon Neil Thomson: As part of that assessment to go to 10:00 am, was any consideration given to workers who might also be veterans and who might want to participate in the activities of the morning, noting that there is more than just dawn services? We have some fairly young veterans now who have served in various more recent wars and also in peacetime. Was there any assessment of the impact of that on their ability to partake in those very important and sacred reflections?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: This will apply to any of the changes that relate to any of the public holidays. The ones that relate to Christmas and Good Friday were of particular interest to Hon Rod Caddies and Hon Maryka Groenewald. I ask the member to please listen carefully to me so that I do not have to repeat this. I do not mean that in a flippant way; I just mean that I will be quite thorough here.
Both the Fair Work Act and the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act provide protections for workers in relation to whether they are required to work on public holidays. Those acts basically mirror each other. We inserted those provisions into the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act last year, when we amended the Industrial Relations Act to reflect the provisions of the Fair Work Act provisions. That effectively provides that a worker can make a reasonable refusal to work on a public holiday. There is not an absolute right to be able to refuse to work on a public holiday, but when a worker makes that refusal, the employer must take into account the circumstances of the worker. For example, if a person is a veteran, as the member has identified, and Anzac Day is of significant import to them, then that worker could reasonably refuse to work on Anzac Day on that particular basis. There is a flip side to that, which provides that an employer can require a worker to work, if it is reasonable to do so, even if they have requested not to work. There is a whole shopping list of things within both the Fair Work Act and the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act that set out the kinds of factors that an employer can take into consideration as to whether they can refuse a worker the right to have that day off. The most obvious ones who would be affected by that are essential workers; we must have those people working, notwithstanding that the day might be of great significance to them, but there is a balance there.
The member has criticised me many times for my associations with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, but I will tell the member that in my time at the CFMEU we ran cases for workers and particularly, in some cases, veterans who wanted to take Anzac Day off and were refused the right to take that day off. We took those employers to the tribunals and courts, because that was a breach of those workers' workplace rights. We usually took those cases to the media as well, and we were quite successful in either shaming those particular employers for ignoring the circumstances of particular individuals who wanted to observe those days for their reasons, or they were sanctioned by the court or the tribunal—whichever one it was; I cannot recall now. Those protections are there, and what we have done here does not change those particular protections in any way. I think that is one of those considerations. It is an already existing framework.
Hon Neil Thomson: The minister delved into quite a big area there. I certainly would not want his counsel to discourage others in this chamber to ask some detailed questions. I am sure he would agree that he is not trying to do that!
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: It was more just to cover that point off.
Hon Neil Thomson: Yes, and I note that to the minister's credit he actually raised that issue with me during the second reading debate. I appreciate that, because I think the issue of worker protection might be a topic for further discussion at the relevant stage of the bill. There are of lot of questions on that. I want to have a look at some of the specific comments the minister made earlier in relation to making an application. If we could just go back to the issue we were discussing around the RSL and the concerns it has raised, the minister said it was not just a case that no venue or—
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I think the word that was used was that it's not sacrosanct.
Hon Neil Thomson: That is right; that is the word. The minister said they could not trade on Anzac Day and that, in fact, they could make an application. How many applications are normally made on a normal Anzac Day, and how many were granted prior to this change?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: We do not have those figures at the table with us. We are trying to see whether we are able to secure them, but in order to not hold up debate, if we can move onto another part or any related questions the member might have, we can then circle back if that information comes back to us. I will also make the point that that application process applies to RSLs as well. RSLs would have to make an application to open earlier. It is currently 12 noon. When we move it back to 10:00 am, if they want to open before 10:00 am, they would have to apply through the application process.
Hon Neil Thomson: I think the minister makes an important point. I do not know how often it happens with a commercial venture opening. I am aware of RSLs being able to make applications. It is a bit of a time for service personnel to get together and have a few drinks, which is very important on such an important day of reflection.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: One might say it was part of the tradition.
Hon Neil Thomson: Very much so, minister, and very much has been since the very first Anzac Day, absolutely. We all know our history on that.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: By way of interjection, member, I might add that not all veterans participate, and I'll give the example of my wife's father, who fought in the Second World War in North Africa and through Palestine. He never, ever partook of any alcohol, even during the war. He was a teetotaller.
Hon Neil Thomson: Yes, and the minister's personal reflection on that is actually important. I know there is a whole range of reasons why people get involved in the celebrations—if I can use that word; it is probably the wrong word to use—or the commemoration of Anzac Day. There are many veterans who choose to take a different approach, and I can understand why. It is a very complex issue for many veterans who have dealt with that. As I said, I just thought it was worthy of further discussion. I suppose that puts a slightly different angle on it, because the RSL forms such an important part of our culture. It was not something that I had thought of or objected to—the issue around having extended trading, even on Good Friday, as someone who might be regarded as a lapsed Christian, I have to confess!
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: You're a lapsed New Zealander, from what I can recall!
Hon Neil Thomson: I always aspire to be a better one, but you know; I have put that out there, probably to my detriment! I try my best, as we all do. I have respect, as I am sure all members in this chamber do, for different faiths and for people's commitment to faith on a personal level, but I will go back to the RSL issue.
Would it be fair to say that extending trading hours on Anzac Day may potentially impact the viability of some RSL clubs? Is there any risk of that happening? I do not say that in a negative way, but I think it is important that RSL clubs continue to be strong and it something that could be a concern for the RSL, noting its important role and the work it does on Anzac Day.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I do not think this one small thing that will be from 12:00 pm to 10:00 am will affect the viability of RSL clubs. If that is what is keeping them in business, I think there are probably some other issues going on. I will say that people who attend RSL clubs do so primarily because they are comrades and this change will probably not affect where people frequent on Anzac Day.
Hon Neil Thomson:I think the minister might be right. I hope that is the case. Obviously, the RSL made a very big statement today and I certainly hope that these changes will not impact negatively on attendance at Anzac Day ceremonies because that is very important. I hope there will not be an impact on clubs' viability. If only I was the minister, but I am not. The minister we have now is ex-service personnel, so I hope that he has a watching brief on this issue to see how we are going, because it is always in the power of this Parliament to change it if we need to.
The minister mentioned a very extensive list of consultation. Is there any scope for that list to be circulated at this point in time? I guess it is a procedural matter to the Chair or to the minister. Can that be tabled for members? I am not sure what the procedure is in the committee.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Deputy Chair, welcome to your session. This is a copy of a document that was provided to Hon Maryka Groenewald, so I am happy to table it for other members' benefit.
(See paper 617.)
Hon Neil Thomson: We are just having a little chat here. It shows there is collaboration across the opposition and the crossbench.
The minister mentioned the Roman Catholic Church. We have a very diverse society, even in the Christian community. I am talking cross-culturally; were any other churches consulted on this legislation? We have the Eastern Orthodox—I am probably making a trap for myself by mentioning churches specifically, but there is a range of groups across the board. Were any other church groups consulted?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: We are ensuring we are absolutely certain because it goes back a couple of years. We consulted with the Anglican Church as well. That is the only other group we have identified, but I want to get positive information from my advisers that it did, in fact, happen. They are very strongly of that view, but I want to be confident about it. I think on the honourable member's broader point about whether other religious groups were consulted, it would have been only the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church.
Hon Neil Thomson: I suppose that suggests there was a limitation on that consultation. Unfortunately, in the limited discussions I had some time ago with some church leaders, they raised a concern about the lack of access to ministers under this government. I think, certainly under the Barnett government, from time to time, there was a group representing a range of denominations across our state. It is important, even in these times, notwithstanding the decline of church membership over the last few decades, because 40-odd per cent of Western Australians, in the census at least, indicate their affiliation with a church. I suggest many would probably support the changes, but I cannot speak for churches because, as I said, those organisations will have their own views. I am sure they were probably somewhat disappointed with the change, but there has been a long tradition in our society of particularly those very sacred ceremonies at Easter and Christmas and on Sundays. I think it would probably be fair to say that Christmas is still celebrated by a vast majority of the community because of its cultural nature in our society. I suppose that does raise some issues. It is always that challenging balance between people's desire to have more freedoms and to celebrate together in the different ways we have seen society go about it. There has been some transformation whereby, for example, on Christmas Day, many families go on holiday together and would probably be very welcoming of the fact that they could go to a venue, share a few drinks together and celebrate Christmas that way. That is something I am sure would be regarded as a great addition to the options available. Without labouring the point, is there any way that the minister, with the support of his advisers, could give us a bit of a breakdown of those in that very comprehensive list that might be supporting all the changes and those who might be opposing the changes? It is one thing to consult, but we would like to try to get a bit of what the actual feedback was like. If it is any assistance, minister, as an example, a few local governments, certainly the City of Perth, and the Western Australian Local Government Association, were mentioned.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: WALGA was mentioned.
Hon Neil Thomson: Yes. I assume it has supported all the changes, but maybe not. Industry groups will be supportive and certainly the tourism industry is likely to be supportive. I am trying to give the minister the answers, but there is a collection of groups here—for example, a lot of Aboriginal corporations—that I assume are involved in working in social service delivery, such as Ruah Community Services, and the Salvation Army, and then there are health practitioners. This is a bit of a broad question, but is there any way the minister or his advisers could give us a summary of the sort of feedback that came from those different categories? I will not say this too many times during Committee of the Whole, but I think it would have been helpful to have a more comprehensive review done of these changes because we would have been able to get that background in a more structured way. If the minister could answer that question, that would be helpful.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: As the member can tell from the very comprehensive list that we provided and the fact that those consultations occurred through that development process, there is going to be a very broad range of views. It is not really for me to speak on behalf of those organisations as to whether they do or do not support a particular piece of legislation.
Hon Neil Thomson: It would have been good to have a report on that.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Even reports do not necessarily drill down to the individual positions of organisations. Sometimes organisations will express views to government that they want to be expressed only directly to government, but they are free to speak on their own behalf. I do not want to be in a position in which I misrepresent the views of any particular group that is involved. Of course there will be groups that were very supportive of the government's reforms. There will be groups that were largely supportive or groups that were not supportive of elements of it at all. I think Hon Tim Clifford made a contribution in which he talked about the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE), I think it is, and the consultations that the Greens have had with that organisation about its concerns. Some of the amendments that he has put on the notice paper relate to—I hope I am not misrepresenting anything, member, from our discussions either in the chamber or behind the Chair—helping to be informed on its position in its conversation about those things.
The member will recognise that this bill will do a couple of things. Some of it relates to regulation of small bars, reducing red tape and all those sorts of things. They are important but relatively low level things. It will then do another thing that is very big, which is dealing with the alcohol paradox, as I like to call it: we see alcohol as a pro-social activity that people engage in and enjoy with a range of industries around it—we encourage it because it is great for people to have social interaction that is positive for them—and then the flip side, or the paradox, is the social ills that come with alcohol. This bill traverses both, because we are supporting the industry by reducing red tape around a lot of its activities, increasing the small bar size from 120 to 150 persons and such things, and reducing the number of applications needed, while, on the other side, we are proposing to make the banned drinkers register a permanent fixture of the liquor licensing regime to try to deal with the harmful use of liquor; there is that element of it. It is a complex space and I am not trying to brush the member off on that, but I do not want to misrepresent the position of any of those organisations.
I will give the example of the Returned and Services League of Australia. When we were dealing with the RSL a couple of years ago, it had different leadership. Although we accurately reflected the position of the leadership at that time, which was that it had concerns about the extension of the trading hours, it was not as vociferous in its criticism as what came out in the paper today. That organisation is controlled by its members. The members have changed their leadership and the leadership is reflecting a different position. Again, I do not want to be in a position in which I misrepresent any of those things, but the member can take it writ that there is obviously a broad range of views on this. But we think the general community is generally in support of what we propose across the broad spectrum and it will be welcomed in many sectors. We as a government have made a decision that these are the matters we want to bring before Parliament to change the law on.
Hon Neil Thomson: I am a little bit disappointed at not being able to be provided with a structured summary of the categories of those who might have had objections and those in support. I note—I may be wrong—that there seem to be no unions that represent workers in the hospitality sector on this list. I assume, given the minister's extensive experience with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, he has talked—
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Be certain; it was not the CFMEU.
Hon Neil Thomson: I am sure it is not the CFMEU, but given I am not an expert on that, can the minister give us a bit of a breakdown of the unions consulted, and maybe give us an understanding of the views of the unions that represent hospitality workers in the sector?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: To be certain, it was not the CFMEU, because it does not have any interest in this bill—I am being glib there—but further meetings were held with the general secretary of UnionsWA, Rikki Hendon, and also directly with the United Workers Union, which represents hospitality workers.
Hon Neil Thomson: Was the United Workers Union in full-throated support of these changes?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I am advised that the United Workers Union did not raise any particular concerns. That union represents the largest single-site employer outside of the health system, which is Crown Perth, and it operates almost 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I think it does not operate on some days. It did not raise any particular concerns. A lot of its workers will be affected by extended trading permits in any event on those other days if they are required to work.
Hon Tim Clifford: Outside of the comprehensive lists that the minister has provided today, I am checking whether any other prescribed bodies corporate or land councils within the BDR area were consulted ?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: As part of the harm-minimisation evaluation, Deloitte engaged with Aboriginal organisations and support-service organisations that assist Aboriginal people in the banned drinkers areas. They included the Bloodwood Tree Association—I am going to murder these names unfortunately—Puntukurnu Aboriginal Medical Service, Wunan Foundation, Midwest Mental Health and Community Alcohol and Drug Service, Aboriginal Family Legal Services, Aboriginal Health Council of Western Australia, Geraldton Regional Aboriginal Medical Service, Milliya Rumurra Aboriginal Corporation, Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services, WA Aboriginal Health Strategy, WA Country Health Service Pilbara, Wirraka Maya Health Service Aboriginal Corporation, Carnarvon Aboriginal Medical Service, Kununurra Waringarri Aboriginal Corporation and the Bidyadanga Aboriginal Community La Grange Inc. I am advised that these organisations either were contacted and some of them may not have responded or were contacted and engagement was had with them.
Hon Tim Clifford: The data on the number of First Nations people on the BDR can inform the wraparound services required. To ensure that First Nations people receive culturally informed and appropriate support for alcohol abuse, will the government commit to collecting data of First Nations people on the BDR? Are there any issues with collecting that sort of data?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The difficulty with collecting that data is that the BDR process is not one in which the person affected is necessarily a willing participant. Either a medical practitioner, social worker or police officer will make the application. In those circumstances, it would be fraught for those individuals to make an assessment or judgement about whether a person identifies as a First Nations person or any other thing. Information is put on those applications. We do not think it is appropriate for us to then ask the person whether they identify as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. That is where that issue around the list is at. In a general sense, there could be benefits of having better data, but the process for obtaining it would not be culturally safe or appropriate in many circumstances.
Hon Tim Clifford: How many people on the banned drinkers register were served papers that stated that they had been added to the register while imprisoned? What was the process for this? Can the government explain what documents they were served?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I do not have detail of the kind that the member has asked for. The reason for that is that police would manage that process but the advisers I have not are from the police. To provide a further explanation of how that might happen, a person might have committed a family violence–related matter and been charged. That condition is a precedent for issuing a banned drinker order. The police would then issue the order and serve it. That person may be in custody when they get served. As I say, I am not in a position to provide the more specific details that the member has asked for because I do not have advisers from the police here.
Hon Tim Clifford: Are any legal services funded to provide legal advice to people who have been placed on the BDR?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: There is no specific funding for people who are issued with a BDO and placed on the BDR. A person who received an order that they thought was issued without merit or substance could make an application to Legal Aid for a grant or they could go to a community legal centre that provides advice about these matters. Not all of them do that, of course; some of the community legal centres are subject-matter specific. An Aboriginal person can probably go to the Aboriginal Legal Service, for guidance at least. Whether they are represented further would be up to the service based on the merits of the particular case. There would be options for them to do that. Of course, they can visit their local suburban lawyer and get advice from them as well. There are options for them, but we do not provide a specific legal pathway to say that once they have been served and wish to challenge it, they can access a grant of funding for X or Y.
Hon Maryka Groenewald: This might be a bit ignorant, but is there a reason why the banned drinkers register cannot be dealt with in a separate bill? A lot of issues have been raised. Is there any merit in separating the BDR function from this bill?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The Liquor Control Act, which is what we are amending by way of this bill, serves a number of purposes. If the member looks at the objects of the act at page 14 of the blue bill, she will see that the objects are to regulate the sale, supply and consumption of liquor; to minimise the harm or ill health caused to people, or any group of people, due to the use of liquor; and to cater for the requirements of consumers for liquor and related services with regard to the proper development of the liquor industry, the tourism industry and other hospitality industries. The bill fits within the objects of the act that we are amending. That is why we brought these things together. It is not uncommon to have a bill that might deal with a set of one thing and then a group of other things as well. Legislating through the Parliament—I have been here a bit longer than the member—is not as expeditious as we would always like, so when the government gets an opportunity to get a matter before the Parliament, it gets its matter before the Parliament. Cabinet made a decision to print the bill in this form with this content, so although it was technically possible to separate them, the government made the choice to bring them together because we want to deal with them together.
Hon Maryka Groenewald: Given the expediency of this bill, is there is no opportunity for the BDR to be given consideration within the health portfolio or is it a different act? Is it set in stone that the BDR is within the Liquor Control Act and there cannot be any considerations or changes to it?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The Minister for Racing and Gaming is responsible for the promotion and regulation of liquor in our society. This is within his portfolio and within that particular department. I do not think it is far out to say this could be a health issue rather than a liquor control issue, and it is a health issue as well, but in making amendments to this act, the decision and policy of the bill has been set by the vote on the second reading, and the decision of this house is that it should be in this bill. We are not in any way proposing to crowbar apart any provision of this bill—we would have to talk to the clerks—even if we were contemplating that, which we are not. We are happy with what we have put before Parliament and we will proceed on that basis.
Hon Neil Thomson: I want to go back to the consultation with the United Workers Union. I thank the minister for the background. In the spirit of the Premier, I did a bit of a Google search to get more information to try to work out which unions to refer to. Are any members of the hospitality sector in the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association of WA?
Hon Samantha Rowe: They are a significant part.
Hon Neil Thomson: I like to hear that union mentioned, given a chance. This is the opportunity to do that. Google works, member!
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The strict union coverage in Western Australia is probably not a matter that falls within the four walls of this bill, but I will assist the member. UnionsWA is the peak organisation for affiliated trade unions. The SDA is an affiliated trade union with UnionsWA. UnionsWA would have been representing its members, which includes the SDA, through that process. My advice is that no specific or direct consultation was undertaken with the SDA. The reason it may be relevant and acknowledged is that the SDA represents retail workers, not hospitality workers, but retailers work in liquor stores, so the SDA would cover those who work in a retail liquor store like Liquorland or Dan Murphy's. I do not drink and do not buy alcohol, so my lack of familiarity probably has been shown.
Hon Neil Thomson: I think that highlights a very important point. Despite the views of some members on the other side, I am a very strong supporter of people choosing to join a union and getting out there and having their rights represented. If any of them are watching, I am here today because I just wish they would not affiliate themselves so strongly with the Labor Party. We are in a democracy, and we have seen how the Labor Party has moved away from the working person and is out there supporting some of the more elites in society, we could say. I will just share that little bit of wisdom with members to rev it up a little!
The minister raised a very important point. I have mentioned the abuse those retail workers cop at the liquor stores when tourists rock up at Carnarvon and give them a hard time because people cannot buy a bottle of red and a carton of beer—
Hon Kate Doust interjected.
Hon Neil Thomson: Yes, but it happens, member.
If anyone from the SDA is watching now, I wonder whether they had the opportunity to have a say about some of the liquor controls and the framing of this bill in a broader sense. In line with the debate on clause 1, was there proper consultation by the then Minister for Racing and Gaming and his staff and the current minister with those hardworking retailers who are on the frontline of the liquor stores?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The example the member gave about a tourist in Carnarvon not being able to buy a bottle of red and a carton of beer is not correct, because that is not what we are dealing with in this bill. I also remind the member that it was only last year that we passed increased penalties for assaults on retail workers. This government very much takes seriously any violence and aggression towards retail workers, including those who work in liquor stores. If I recall correctly, the Liquor Stores Association of WA, including Peter Peck, were extremely supportive of the government's actions on that. We do not have any truck with anybody, however upset they are with any of our liquor laws, assaulting or abusing retail workers.
Hon Neil Thomson: I thank the minister for reminding me of that. I know that a liquor store owner in Kununurra very strongly led the charge to push for changes to the legislation. I thank the minister for getting that in place. I strongly supported that as well. That is very good.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I hope we are on the same ticket when it comes to that kind of behaviour towards workers.
Hon Neil Thomson: Absolutely, yes.
I will press the minister a little in relation to the United Workers Union. I note that there is an agreement to change the trading hours. I know there has been some history to the objection of changing the trading hours. The government has been quite reluctant to change the trading hours, for example, in the normal retail space for Sunday trading for retailers such as Coles and Woolies. Can the minister reflect upon whether there is any change of attitude from the United Workers Union and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association of WA in relation to concerns about trading hours generally, given that the minister said they were so supportive of the changes to Good Friday and Christmas?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The member says that I said they were "so supportive" of this; I have never said that about them. I said that we engaged in consultation with UnionsWA and the United Workers Union and they did not have an objection to the legislation. I do not know that they are running up and down St Georges Terrace singing the praises of the bill, but the position is that they have not objected to it. As the member knows, through legislating, groups often do not give a ringing endorsement; they will say, "We don't have an issue with it." That is that particular part of it. In terms of the member's broader argument about changing trading hours, this is not a change to the retail trading hours of the kind that he is contemplating, which I think his political party supports. This is about the processes through which those who hold liquor licences can apply to open earlier on particular days, which they can currently do on application.
Hon Neil Thomson: Effectively it's the same.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Not really, because it is on application. We are removing the application part of it, up to a certain point at certain times, to give consistency of trading across some other hours for those organisations.
Hon Julie Freeman: I want to take us back to Hon Tim Clifford's discussion around the banned drinkers register. I want to understand what the linkage is between the BDR and the services for the banned drinker. Who has responsibility for initiating and monitoring services for these people once they are placed on the BDR?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I presume the member means drug and alcohol support services when she says "services". The department I am dealing with does not make provision for that. When somebody receives their banned drinker order, they are provided with material that includes contact details for the services available to them through the Department of Health. They have contact details there, and then they can reach out and seek support. They can also go to their GP to seek support if that support is not there, or they can access one of the other drug and alcohol services that are often available. I am sure Alcoholics Anonymous still exists somewhere; that would be one of the popular culture ones that are often talked about. Those are available, but that person needs to take some responsibility for their behaviour and their situation. They are on the banned drinkers register because they have problematic issues associated with their alcohol use. We want individuals to take some individual responsibility for that particular circumstance.
Hon Julie Freeman: It is great to know that they will be provided with a pamphlet and sent on their merry way. I am interested to know what the decision-making process is to apply the banned drinkers register to a new area. Is it something that is initiated by the police? Is it the Department of Health or local government? What are the metrics used to justify applying this tool to an area that is struggling with problem drinkers?
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: This might be the last response because I need to report the bill in a second, if that is okay. The process for creating a new banned drinkers area is through the minister, who can make a declaration, I think it is, via the regulations. That would typically come about because it is becoming evident that the rates of alcohol harm in a particular area are getting to a level that would require some action, including the extension of the banned drinkers register. That information could come to the minister by the police, the Department of Health, the community raising those particular issues or Hon Neil Thomson raising it persistently in Parliament about particular towns that he is very connected to. There is a range of ways in which that might be elevated to the level that the minister would consider it. One of the things that would happen in those circumstances is that the department would start looking at whether the statistics in the area for alcohol harm—obviously, alcohol-related violence and those sorts of things—would be sufficient to justify issuing an order of that kind. That is the way that it happens. As I say, the declaration currently is by way of regulation and would continue to be by way of regulation after this bill has passed. It is to be contrasted with where there are liquor controls, which are determined by the Director of Liquor Licensing. The minister does not have a direct role in that. I will just report progress.
Committee interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.
(Continued at a later stage of the sitting.)
