Hansard

Bills

Liquor Control Amendment Bill 2025

Committee of the whole

Resumed from 18 September. The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Andrew O'Donnell) in the chair; Hon Stephen Dawson in charge of the bill on behalf of Hon Matthew Swinbourn (Minister for the Environment).

Clause 1: Short title

11:10:19 AM

Progress was reported after the clause had been partly considered.

Hon Julie Freeman: It has been quite a big recess between when we started clause 1 debate and now. I will attempt to pick up from where we left off. My first question to the minister is this: How has the government determined that the sunset clause should be removed rather than extended for the banned drinkers register and that it should become permanent?

Hon Stephen Dawson: I am told that we did some consultation and 80% of people who were consulted were in favour of extending the banned drinkers register.

Hon Julie Freeman: I am thinking about the equipment that businesses that are required to implement the banned drinkers register will have to use. I wonder whether the minister can explain what kind of equipment and technology is required by those businesses.

Hon Stephen Dawson: They are not required to purchase it; it is provided by the government. An iPad is provided. They are required to scan the driver's licence and type in the details just to check whether the person is on the banned drinkers register .

Hon Julie Freeman: My follow-on questions are: If the government provides the equipment, is there any cost to the business to install or use the equipment? Who is paying for all this infrastructure?

Hon Stephen Dawson: No, there is not.

Hon Julie Freeman: Is any of the data collected by Scantech used to inform agencies about the frequency of banned drinkers attempting to purchase alcohol in the banned drinkers area?

Hon Stephen Dawson: Data is collected by the department, but it is not used for that purpose, so it is a yes and no answer.

Hon Julie Freeman: Is the data not used in any way to detect any patterns of behaviour that could inform the chamber of the efficacy of the banned drinkers register?

Hon Stephen Dawson: They can see the raw numbers, but individuals' details are not tracked, so they cannot see the details. They can see the collection group together, but not an individual's details, so they cannot track the number of times an individual has been refused.

Hon Julie Freeman: Forgive me; I am trying to get my head around the point of the technology. If people are coming in, the business is scanning their ID, and the technology is determining whether they are on the banned drinkers register—all they are coming out with is a yes or no. We are just collecting that there were 20 yeses and two noes today, but there is no further depth to that data collection and no use of that data to detect patterns across a banned drinkers area.

Hon Stephen Dawson: They can detect how many have been refused, but the point of the banned drinkers register is that individuals who are on the register are not served. Once the scanning takes place, the proprietor, the licensee or, indeed, the staff member who is serving the person at the register simply can see whether, yes, they are banned and they should not serve them or, no, they are not banned and they can serve them as they would normally.

Hon Julie Freeman: If the data being collected at the point of sale is not being used in any way to determine the efficacy of the banned drinkers register, is there any other data about the demographics of the individuals who are on the banned drinkers register, and is that being used and analysed, perhaps to give us some understanding of basics such as gender and age? This could help members understand who is being targeted by this valuable tool.

Hon Stephen Dawson: I think we heard different things in the member's question. Would she mind asking that question one more time for me, please?

Hon Julie Freeman: I suppose what I am trying to get to the bottom of is this. We are not using the information gathered by the retailer at the point of sale, which is just getting either a yes or a no. We clearly have a list of individuals who are on the banned drinkers register. For the banned drinkers register more generally, I am curious about whether we are collecting any other demographic information about those individuals, even if it is as basic as gender and age, so we understand which members of the community are being targeted by this valuable tool.

Hon Stephen Dawson: We do have gender and age, but we do not have race. That is just for the member's information.

The Deputy Chair (Hon Andrew O'Donnell): I just take the option here to note the supplementary notice paper 29, issue 1.

Hon Neil Thomson: We have had a change of minister. Maybe I missed some preamble at the beginning. Hon Matthew Swinbourn was the person I was speaking to.

Hon Stephen Dawson: He is away on urgent parliamentary business this morning but will be joining us imminently. It is my pleasure to answer questions in the meantime.

Hon Neil Thomson: Thank you, minister. I know that we work so well together! I must say, by way of reflection, that we were last on this in September, and I have attempted to note and go through what I had asked because I did not want to duplicate it. It is some time ago and it is very hard to recall.

Hon Stephen Dawson: You get a gold star!

Hon Neil Thomson: A gold star! Excellent.

I want to reflect a bit, because we talked about consultation and the unions and Aboriginal groups involved. We discussed a range of issues on 17 and 18 September. I want to focus on the sunset clause. Effectively, the banned drinkers register trial will end and it will become permanent. Normally when these things come to an end, there is the opportunity for parliamentary oversight of the effectiveness of the scheme and a report is made to Parliament. That is the normal procedure and why we include sunset clauses for these things. I must say for the record that I am a little disappointed that we have got to this point and we have really seen only the summaries of the reports that were carried out by consultants. I am not sure why those reports were not provided. Why have the full reports on the effectiveness of the banned drinkers register not been submitted to this Parliament?

Hon Stephen Dawson: The executive summary of the Deloitte evaluation report, which provides a clear overview of the evaluation's key findings, has been released on the department's website. The report contains commercial-in-confidence information and operationally sensitive material related to complex community safety and wellbeing issues that require careful consideration. It is not our intention to release the report at this time.

Hon Neil Thomson: That is a plausible response, but it is disappointing. We know that in some ways, the banned drinkers register operates quite differently from, say, the Northern Territory's banned drinkers register. Some improvements have occurred in recent times. There seems to be more people on the banned drinkers register. I cannot recall whether the question has been asked—it could have been asked while I was away on urgent parliamentary business—as to how many members of the community are currently on the banned drinkers register.

Hon Stephen Dawson: While my advisers find that information for me, I think it will be helpful to add some extra information to the member's earlier question. The department engaged the University of Western Australia to conduct independent evaluations of the initial trial of the voluntary BDR. The reports on these evaluations are available on the department's website. The first is the May 2022 Banned Drinker Register: Interim summary report: Pilbara. The second is the February 2023 Banned Drinker Register: Interim report—Kimberley. Hopefully that might be helpful for the member.

As of 5 December 2025, there were 1,074 people on the banned drinkers register.

Hon Neil Thomson: I thank the minister. For the purpose of Hansard, can the minister explain whether the banned drinkers register provided a net benefit for both the health and social wellbeing of the community?

Hon Stephen Dawson: Yes, there is a clear correlation. Presentations to hospital and crime numbers have been reduced; there is a direct correlation between those and the banned drinkers register.

Hon Neil Thomson: I assume that the recommendations made in those reports have played a part in the design. Are there any changes in the extended banned drinkers register? Have changes been made to the banned drinkers register in the Pilbara and Kimberley as a result of the recommendations in the Deloitte report?

Hon Stephen Dawson: To be clear, no recommendations in the Deloitte report require legislative change. However, at the moment, we are consulting on tranche 2 liquor reforms. A number of the considerations or issues on which we are consulting resulted from feedback received in the Deloitte report.

Hon Neil Thomson: I assume that I have a copy of the same report that is on the Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety's website from February 2023 titled Banned Drinker Register: Interim report—Kimberley.

Hon Stephen Dawson: No. The member has the report that I referred to earlier—the evaluation by the University of Western Australia. I have referred to the Deloitte report. It is still under consideration, but the executive summary was released.

Hon Neil Thomson: There are a few reports. I want to look at the rationale for using targeted rather than whole-of-society policies, which is in the report I mentioned earlier, not the Deloitte report. The February 2023 report on the Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety's website, Banned Drinker Register: Interim report — Kimberley, contains some interesting comments:

The first class are moderate drinkers, whose consumption imposes no negative externality cost on society. The second class are heavy and or binge drinkers whose consumption does impose and externality cost on society, referred to here as ‘problem’ consumers.

There is a different impact of policies such as the BDR and TAMS versus generic policies such as taxes.

The key paragraph states:

In contrast, targeted policies such as TAMS and the BDR—

TAMS refers to the total alcohol management system—it is the identification of people from their driver's licence because, for those who are not aware, people have to show their driver's licence—and it is connected to the banned drinkers register, because that is the process for identifying whether a person is a banned drinker. It continues:

by contrast have no impact on moderate consumers. Further, these policies aim to shift the demand curve for problem consumers so they can generate the same level of net society gain from reduced consumption without imposing a loss on moderate consumers

That is a very good summary of what the policy aim should be. The legislation has been amended to extend trading times for people in Margaret River, Busselton and other areas south of Perth during Christmas, Easter and so forth. However, we have not seen a targeted policy for those people referred to as problem consumers. The essence of the banned drinkers register is to target problem consumers to achieve the benefits that were mentioned earlier—a reduction of presentations to hospital and the ability to follow up with people who have a problem with alcohol—not first-class moderate drinkers whose consumption imposes no negative externality cost on our society, as per that report.

I turn to the situation for people in my part of the world in the north of our state. Carnarvon probably has the most onerous restrictions on alcohol in our state and, to this day, I do not know why Carnarvon has been picked on more than, say, a place like Broome. More onerous restrictions are in place in Fitzroy Crossing and Halls Creek, but in terms of major regional centres, Carnarvon has the most onerous restrictions.

The policy's aim is basically to shift the demand curve for problem consumers so that they can generate the same level of net society gain from reduced consumption without imposing a loss of moderate consumers. That is from the report I mentioned earlier. I think it would have been much better to come into this place with a more detailed plan and more data on the effectiveness of the banned drinkers register so that we could look at the volumetric restrictions, which are not referred to in the bill but which are related. Takeaway alcohol restrictions stop people from purchasing alcohol of any kind from an alcohol takeaway establishment on a Sunday and Monday in Carnarvon. They restrict the first-class moderate drinkers, we could say, from purchasing alcohol throughout the week when they would be limited to purchasing two bottles of wine in some towns and the cheapest bottle they could purchase is $15, so they could not purchase packaged liquor or anything other than two bottles of wine and/or one bottle of spirits. That is a lot of alcohol, but the point is that it creates some frustration for people who do not necessarily have a problem with alcohol in any overt way and it creates an issue for our towns and the way they are treated by the community. For example, there have been complaints by a lot of retailers in Carnarvon—I think this is legitimate—whereby shoppers such as grey nomads will drive straight through the town and move on to Exmouth where they can load up their car with alcohol. They can back it up and throw in as much as they want in Exmouth, but in Carnarvon if they are there on a Sunday or Monday, they cannot buy anything other than possibly two bottles of wine for $15 each on a Tuesday through to a Saturday. A lot of people have put up with that. As someone who lives in the regions, I know that people live with it because we know that it is doing some good. However, it also has a long-term impact. We would like to see the policy goal, as outlined in this report, achieved through the banned drinkers register, which we are expanding. If we improved the banned drinkers register and it had greater scope—I will go into that in further detail later—we might be able to ease up on some of the volumetric restrictions on takeaway alcohol and some of the affordability issues for alcohol. People might not accept that. They might ask why people should buy affordable alcohol. It is because it is simply unfair. People living in Perth can buy two litres of wine out of a box for $15 but for a retiree living in Carnarvon, the cheapest 700-millilitre bottle they can get costs $15. That might be a first-world problem, but it is an issue for a lot of old people in those communities living on a pension. They feel aggrieved because they believe that they are paying the price for the misbehaviour of a small minority in our community—or not misbehaviour; they have compassion and understand that those people need to be helped and should not have access to alcohol.

I promise the minister that I will not go into long 10-minute speeches on these things, but I thought this was an opportunity at clause 1 to say that, because it is an issue that has not been properly addressed today. This bill does not address it. It is unfair, or there is a perception of unfairness. People in the South West in Margaret River will be able to purchase alcohol on public holidays. A lot of the establishments there will be pumping. The music will be on and people will enjoy themselves without restriction. Meanwhile, in the north of the state there will be no real way to address it. I understand that these are complex issues and I respect the challenges the department faces and I very much respect the challenges in the health sector in dealing with these issues, as well as our police and emergency services. I am not making light of it, but I make the point on behalf of the constituents I represent and who talk to me on a daily basis about these things in my region. They are slightly frustrated by it, to varying degrees, and wish that this could have been addressed properly. Is there anything in the bill or that the government is planning that will make the banned drinkers register more effective? There might be an opportunity to standardise, to some extent, the volumetric restrictions across the state and have a more targeted approach to the people who need our help.

Hon Stephen Dawson: That is a matter for the Director of Liquor Licensing and it is done on a place-by-place basis depending on alcohol-related harm and the crime associated with it. I would be happy to organise a briefing for the member with the Director of Liquor Licensing at an appropriate time if the member wants me to.

Hon Neil Thomson: Yes, please. Early next year. Let's do it.

Hon Stephen Dawson: I am happy to organise that for the member.

Hon Neil Thomson: Thank you.

Hon Stephen Dawson: More broadly, the BDR orders target behavioural change and the government's policy targets the problem consumer through BDR as a tool. Other targeted harm-minimisation tools are available in the Liquor Control Act, and these tools are meant to work together. I know that the member spoke on behalf of his constituents, particularly in the North West of the state. He mentioned that Margaret River does not have the same restrictions. That is because the number of presentations for alcohol-related harm per head of population is different from Carnarvon, Derby and Broome. At this stage, there are differences in different areas around the state because of the incidence of alcohol-related harm. That relates to alcohol-related admissions to EDs and hospitals. They are very different in different areas of the state. As the member indicated, I hear his frustration and am happy to facilitate that briefing for him.

Hon Tim Clifford: How many people have opted to go on the banned drinkers register by choice and how many have been put on it as a mandatory measure through the court system?

Hon Stephen Dawson: Ten people put themselves forward to be on the register. I think the member was away from the chamber on urgent parliamentary business earlier when I said there are 1,074 people on the register. If 10 put themselves on the register, that means there are 1,064 others.

Hon Tim Clifford: We have been contacted about concerns with the banned drinkers register and the way it is implemented, specifically in areas of the state when it comes to First Nations people being discriminated against by being put on the register. Have any concerns been raised directly with the minister about the nature of the banned drinkers register in regard to discrimination?

Hon Stephen Dawson: Orders are only issued when people have been charged with alcohol-related offences. Earlier on, questions were asked about the data kept and whether we know a person's age or their gender. We have no understanding about people's race or ethnicity. We simply do not know. This is not about attacking a particular race or ethnic group; this is solely about dealing with people who have been found to have problems to help them address those problems. As I indicated earlier, as a result of the banned drinkers register, we have seen a direct correlation in presentations to hospital but also crime. It is not about race or ethnicity. I am not suggesting the member said I said that, but I state clearly that it is not about that; it is about people with problems that we need to try to fix.

Hon Neil Thomson: I would like to talk in a bit of detail about the banned drinkers register, if members do not mind. I thank the minister for the answers so far and the offer of a briefing. I will take that up early next year. It is an ongoing issue and I hope that the minister, acting on behalf of the Minister for Racing and Gaming, and I can continue to have a constructive dialogue across the chamber about improving alcohol management in our regions.

A comparison of the Northern Territory's banned drinkers register with the Western Australian banned drinkers registers shows some quite big differences. Did the Director of Liquor Licensing undertake any assessment of the effectiveness of the Northern Territory BDR versus the Western Australian BDR?

Hon Stephen Dawson: Obviously the two jurisdictions are different and have unique circumstances, but there was certainly engagement with the appropriate department in the NT when we were putting together the banned drinkers register in around 2022–23. The department provided feedback on how its equivalent register was going in that Territory. As I said, we engaged with the NT. As a result, bearing in mind the feedback is for a different jurisdiction, we took a number of learnings into what we have in WA.

Hon Neil Thomson: It is good to hear that the government did engage. The minister is right that the jurisdictions are quite different, but some parts of our state are probably quite similar. I suggest that the Kimberley and the Northern Territory face almost identical issues, and maybe even some other parts of our state. One of the differences with the NT BDR is that it prohibits a person from keeping or drinking alcohol anywhere in the NT. It is a statewide ban. Is it correct to say that if one of those 1,074 people moved to Perth, they would not be banned?

Hon Stephen Dawson: The member said "statewide" but it is Territory wide. People are still banned. If a person is on the banned drinkers register, they are banned, but the equipment is available only in particular areas around the state.

Hon Neil Thomson: Has there ever been any consideration—I am sure this will tear into every liquor store in Perth—of requiring the technology to be implemented statewide? Has there been an assessment from a health perspective? That is one of the challenges, as the minister would know, with being a representative of the Kimberley. Some remote communities, for example, have chosen to become dry communities—it is terrific when they make that choice and the community leadership makes that decision—but people then sometimes move to regional centres to seek alcohol. There is probably anecdotal evidence suggesting people chase alcohol in parts of our state where there are fewer restrictions and that that may have a much more negative impact, in that it takes people away from their family connections and support structures they might have around their communities and so forth. People who may have an issue with alcohol go to towns or parts of our state that have fewer or no restrictions, in the sense that the liquor outlets do not have the technology or other measures to assess people at the point of sale and stop them, and they can effectively go into a store and purchase alcohol. I think that can have a more deleterious effect on their health and wellbeing than maybe staying in situ in their community where they might be able to be treated or where they have family support. Has there been any assessment at all of the regime across our state?

Hon Stephen Dawson: No, there has not been. It would be very costly to roll out the equipment across the state. The BDR is in areas where we know harm is occurring. If there is evidence that it is occurring in an area, the banned drinkers register is put in place. There is no evidence to suggest that people are coming to Perth. If that evidence were provided, perhaps it is something the government could consider at the time. The evidence shows that in places where we have the register the number of alcohol-related admissions to emergency departments and hospitals has been reduced and we are not seeing a corresponding spike in places around the state that do not have the register.

Hon Neil Thomson: Has there been any assessment in, say, metropolitan Perth, of the variation between suburbs in the number of presentations for alcohol-related harm? I assume there are parts of Perth with alcohol problems. They are not the exclusive domain of our regional communities. I assume there is a level of alcohol-related presentations in our health services here. Has an assessment been made?

Hon Stephen Dawson: We certainly monitor alcohol-related presentations in the metropolitan area, particularly because we have the register in place in the regions, to check that there is no corresponding lift as the issue subsides, to a degree, in the regions. The honourable member is correct that there is alcohol-related harm right across our state; it is not just the domain of regional or remote communities. The western suburbs of Perth, the areas with the best socio-economic status, can have these issues, too. But the number of incidences we are seeing in some of our remote communities is significantly higher per head of population, hence the need to trial and put in place something to deal with the issue.

Hon Neil Thomson: Of course, this also applies to other alcohol-related harms, particularly around family violence because alcohol is often a factor—it is probably one of the key factors—in presentations, particularly when violence is involved. I think it is reasonable to say that there is variation. For example, we know that a person living in the Kimberley is 30 times more likely to suffer from family violence than a person living anywhere else in Australia. That number can vary a bit. That data is based on information available on the Western Australia Police Force website. I think WA has a higher rate than the national average; I think it is twice the national average. The numbers I read the last time I looked at the website showed that a person in Kalgoorlie is something like 15 times more likely to suffer from family violence. There are some very hardworking community members supporting women in the community with women's shelters. Women are often the subject of that incredibly terrible behaviour—family violence. We know it is not the sole domain of men, but it is largely men who are the perpetrators of alcohol-related violence. I think that is fair, but it would be good to have some sort of detailed assessment of that, given that there are probably better ways to do it.

That leads me to my second point in relation to a comparison with the Northern Territory. If members do not mind, I will run with this line of comparison because I think it will be useful. I congratulate the government, by the way, on adopting the banned drinkers register. I have been a strong advocate of a BDR for many years, even prior to coming to this place. I know that the Kimberley zone shires played a very big role in the promotion of it. The Shire of Wyndham–East Kimberley was the first local government jurisdiction to put in a takeaway alcohol management system (TAMS), which it did through the accord. I thought that was a very good initiative. The liquor stores were able to purchase those machines with some government support, including local government support. People can usually put their licence into those machines. That was good work.

We have had many debates in this place about the number of pathways for people to get onto the BDR. After a bit of a slow start, there are now over a thousand people on the BDR. I think it probably would be good to have more, but we also then need the supports to follow up with those people. I think we can talk about that in a minute. In terms of pathways, there seem to be more pathways to go onto the BDR under the Northern Territory system. We have similar concepts to the Northern Territory's police banned drinker orders and court or parole orders relating to alcohol prohibition, but my understanding is that more third parties can make referrals in the Northern Territory, including carers, guardians and authorised persons. I understand that the authorised persons list is much bigger in the territory than in Western Australia. I will put the question this way: Is it fair to characterise our system as having fewer pathways? Why do we not have a wider range of authorised persons who can put people on the register in Western Australia?

Hon Stephen Dawson: The honourable member is correct that there are currently fewer pathways in Western Australia in relation to getting somebody onto the register. As he knows, we do have a number of the pathways that he mentioned in Western Australia. I mentioned earlier that we are consulting on the tranche 2 liquor reforms. One thing that we are consulting on relates to further pathways.

Hon Neil Thomson: I support the government in that work. I will be here to congratulate the government if it is able to do that. One thing we can do as a follow-on from that is to increase the number of authorised persons or professions. I make the point that I know there is some resistance from the medical profession on this because it sometimes does not feel that it should be making referrals to the BDR.

Hon Stephen Dawson: As you probably know—I am trying to be helpful by way of interjection—we do already have a medical worker pathway in WA, as we do a social worker pathway. I say that just in case you didn't know. This will be broader than those things.

Hon Neil Thomson: Broader, yes. There is also professional concern that medical practitioners do not necessarily want to be the person to put someone who has presented to them on the BDR, because that person might then not present again. There is always that tension in medical practice. Maybe it would be an easier decision for social workers to make when obvious harm is being caused within a family. That relates to the police pathways and triggers. I think I know where the Leader of the House's answer might go to—that it might be in tranche 2—but if we compare the Northern Territory model with the Western Australian model, my understanding is that there are fewer police and court triggers in Western Australia or there are more mandatory triggers in the Northern Territory. My understanding is that it includes crimes relating to alcohol, including even minor crimes—for example, alcohol-related infringements. I think there is an automated process within the Northern Territory. Maybe the Leader of the House could make some comment on that. For example, if someone is done for driving under the influence of alcohol in Western Australia, they are not automatically put on the BDR. Maybe that is something that the government could explore. I would have thought that if someone were charged with drink driving, they might also be put on the BDR for a few months.

Hon Stephen Dawson: We already have most of the things that the honourable member just raised, if not all, in our system in Western Australia. If someone is charged with an alcohol-related offence, they can go on there. If someone has been issued with two alcohol-related infringements, they can be issued with a BDO. We have them.

Hon Neil Thomson: It is not automatic, though, is it?

Hon Stephen Dawson: It is not automatic. In saying that, the honourable member's earlier comment that there are more pathways in the NT is correct, but we are consulting at the moment on what else we can add to ours.

Hon Neil Thomson: Will the government be looking at that as part of phase 2—

Hon Stephen Dawson: Yes.

Hon Neil Thomson: —and maybe make it tougher? I think we would possibly agree that if there was a family violence circumstance in which alcohol was a causal factor, that person should probably be on the BDR for a period of time.

Hon Stephen Dawson: If police attend a disturbance now and there is evidence of alcohol-related violence, they can issue a police order and they can issue a banned drinker order as well.

Hon Neil Thomson: In summary, we are going to possibly look at those. When are we likely to hear from the government on phase 2? Is there some sort of timeframe that the government is considering?

Hon Stephen Dawson: I am advised that consultation will continue during the first half of next year, with the drafting of legislation to commence in the second half.

Hon Neil Thomson: I am not holding the government to a specific time, but what are we looking at in terms of the likely delivery of the phase 2 changes? Is there a timeframe that the government is thinking of? Will it be 12 months or 18 months? What are we looking at?

Hon Stephen Dawson: Again, the honourable member is asking me to suggest something that is cabinet-in-confidence. It is a priority for the department. It is a strong priority for the minister. The consultation is happening. The intention is to seek drafting, as I said, in the second half of the year. It is a priority for the minister, but the minister has to go through the process. I cannot hypothetically state anything. I reaffirm that it is a priority.

Hon Neil Thomson: It is good to know that it is a priority. As the Leader of the House knows, I am sure we will have all next year to ask questions in Parliament about how it is going and to get updates as that work is ongoing. The government can be encouraged about the opposition's point of view. Obviously, the shadow minister is in the other place, but I think we are on a unity ticket here.

Hon Stephen Dawson: By way of interjection, your enthusiasm is noted!

Hon Neil Thomson: Thank you. We are not going to criticise the minister for doing more on this. This banned drinkers register is not a silver bullet. We know that it is a complex issue, and, yes, it has risks. I read out the goal of the policies earlier from page 5 of the Banned Drinker Register: Interim report — Kimberley. I will provide a copy of that report to Hansard so that it will have that. The goal is:

… to shift the demand curve for problem consumers so they can generate the same level of net society gain from reduced consumption without imposing a loss on moderate consumers.

I think that is a very important goal that we are going to try to achieve. I think the minister might be relieved. This is an interesting new experience for me. We are playing musical chairs. It is always a delight to work with both ministers.

Several members interjected.

Hon Neil Thomson: That is right; it is true. I will continue while I am on my feet. We have gone through the different pathways—I am sure the minister has had a bit of a briefing about where we are at—looking at the comparison between the Northern Territory—

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Are we on clause 1?

Hon Neil Thomson: We have plenty of time today. We did such a good job last night.

A member interjected.

Hon Neil Thomson: I do not know.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I don't want to get between you and your crayfish.

Hon Neil Thomson: Can the minister tell me when he wants to finish? We will work towards it.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Christmas.

Hon Neil Thomson: By Christmas. Thank you. I think the short-term immediate bans in the Northern Territory are a very good process. I have talked to publicans and liquor store owners. We know that every licensee can ban a person from their premises. That can happen across Perth now under the act. I understand that a licensee can ban a person from their own premises if certain behaviour, like the abuse of staff, leads them to believe that the person is not suitable. That is already in place. I note that from 11 December 2023, Northern Territory police must issue a seven-day banned drinker order for certain events, such as being taken into alcohol-related protective custody, getting an alcohol-related infringement notice, getting issued a banning notice or drinking in a prohibited public space. If any two of those events occurs, the BDO applies for three months. I do not believe that happens in Western Australia. Maybe we could get some understanding on why there is a difference. I do not think we have the seven-day arrangement, but I think a three-day ban can occur. Could the minister explain why we do not have those short-term bans? Those very short-term bans sometimes have an immediate sort of—I am trying to think of the right word—calming effect. I think that is the right word. People settle themselves down when they think that they could be told they cannot get anything, not just at the liquor store down the road but the store next door to the pub at the next town. This is important and should be looked at. Can we have an explanation of why it is different in Western Australia?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Why the what, sorry?

Hon Neil Thomson: Can we have a bit of an explanation of those short-term banning orders in Western Australia and why we do not have seven-day banning orders in Western Australia?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Western Australia has three, six and 12-month bans. As the member has indicated, we do not have a seven-day ban, as the Northern Territory has. It is important to note—the member noted this in his contribution to the second reading debate—that a licensee has the power to exclude someone from their licensed premises. That is probably more where the seven-day ban comes into it. We already have a sufficient head of power for licensees to exclude someone from a licensed premises for a shorter period of time. However, as indicated by the Leader of the House, there is now the stage 2 reform process, which will require further consultation, particularly with industry, regarding what the nature and time for bans might entail . Obviously, as part of that process, comparisons will be made with other jurisdictions, including the Northern Territory, on what works well and what does not, and what could work better for Western Australia. Alcohol-related protective custody orders are available to Western Australian police as well.

Hon Neil Thomson: Alcohol-related protective custody orders remind me that I have had complaints from family members who have been in situations in which there is alcohol-related violence in the home that they felt that the police were unable to act upon. These things are always very technical. I am not an expert on this; I have some knowledge, but not much in some respects. Are there any circumstances in which police might impose some sort of alcohol ban on the perpetrator when attending a place where it is clear that alcohol-related crimes have been committed or alcohol-related harms are occurring?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: In the kinds of circumstances the member described, if alcohol-related harms or apparent offending was occurring, police would issue a police order, which could include something along the lines of an order to separate the parties for 72 hours. That would then provide a trigger for the police to issue a BDO in addition to the order that they are able to issue in that particular circumstance. Of course, when people come to the member about their circumstances—I am sure they do so earnestly—the member is always getting only one version of it. It is difficult to make an assessment about what was appropriate in a particular case without actually hearing both sides. Police tend to be in a better position to do that because they are there and talk to both sides. They do not always get it right, and they recognise that. As I say, they have the capacity when that kind of conduct is underway to issue an order that would separate the people and to then issue the banned drinker order.

Hon Neil Thomson: That kind of explains one situation I had referred to me not long ago in which there was a 72-hour separation, and then the person was back on the grog again and problems occurred. BDOs sometimes take time to go through. Do those BDOs require going to court or can they just be issued?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: By way of interjection, the police can issue them.

Hon Neil Thomson: Can the police issue them straightaway?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Yes.

Hon Neil Thomson: They are for a minimum of three months. Is that correct?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Yes.

Hon Neil Thomson: My recollection is that a concern was raised that police were reluctant to issue a banned drinker order even though there was a desire for a BDO to be issued by other members of the family. As a member of Parliament, I am not an expert on this subject, but maybe there could be a shorter term version, as we mentioned earlier, whereby a five-day order could be issued. Maybe that could be done with a lower threshold requirement. But the minister is saying that there is no threshold and the police can just issue it for three months; is that correct?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Yes; once they have issued the police order in the first instance in relation to the conduct, they can issue the BDO following that.

Hon Neil Thomson: Is the minister satisfied that enough BDOs have been issued when the family, for their relief, would like a BDO to be issued? Does he think that police are erring on the side of caution with this or should they issue them more often for protection? Is he satisfied that BDOs are being issued in a way that is maximising the benefit to families that have been affected by alcohol?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: As the member knows, I am here only in a representative capacity. In my everyday job, I do not have much intersection with these issues. I am advised by advisers at the table that the lack of banned drinker orders being issued by police has not been raised as a systemic issue, but, as indicated to the member previously, another tranche of reform is going to proceed. Of course, he is more than welcome to make submissions on behalf of members of the community or encourage them to make submissions to give greater insight into their experiences of alcohol-related harms in our society. Obviously, if there is a sufficient weight of evidence to suggest that alternatives are required, that can be further explored through that process.

Hon Maryka Groenewald: My questions are particularly about the banned drinkers register data. Is that data shared with specific agencies or departments?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The agency that has responsibility for this area does not share individualised data outside its area. De-identified data such as numbers and things like that may be provided to external agencies. If there was a question in Parliament, that would be provided as well. But the individual's personal circumstances are not shared. For example, the inquiry I made at the table was between the Department of Health and this department. It would not share information in that regard.

Hon Maryka Groenewald: The reason I ask is that I am also mindful of the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education report about harm minimisation. If we know that roughly a thousand people are on the BDR and that information stays quite localised, how do those people receive support or how do agencies or service providers in the area meaningfully help those people if there is no information sharing?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: We need to understand that the way this works is not that somebody gets a banned drinker order and then the state intervenes in that person's life. The effect of the order is on their entitlement to access licensed premises. When the person is issued with the order, they are provided with information about the services available to them to help them address their problematic drinking and other behaviours. Often their GP or a medical practitioner has applied for an order, so the medical practitioner would undoubtedly also be having conversations with them about the additional services they can access in order to address their problematic behaviours.

Hon Maryka Groenewald: If someone has an alcohol addiction, they are not rationally going to take a pamphlet and go, "Wow, I'm going to try to access this service of my own will, given that I am dealing with an addiction, and try to put my life back together." I am not saying that the government should intervene and trace these people and hound them, but is there a way in that process that some information could be shared so that when the person is in a rehabilitation or other specific facility, support and intervention could be provided earlier and the onus would not be on the person to go, "Thank you for this pamphlet", and then it is left at that? I wonder whether there is any way that that process could be improved. It seems to be a little like "Here's a pamphlet; off you go", when we are dealing with people who are already addicted.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Although I understand where the member is coming from in that these people have an identified issue and that wraparound supports, which I think is the term that is often used, should be put around them, we have to understand that, in many instances, these orders are issued against people who have not been convicted of any particular offence. They have obviously come to the attention of their medical practitioner or the police through some of their behaviour, but we also have to respect their autonomy to make decisions about their own health, because, as the member indicated, they may have an addiction and they need to address those kinds of behaviours. If, for example, they had entered the criminal justice system—

Hon Maryka Groenewald: The BDO?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The BDO is not a criminal sanction; it is a community protective mechanism. It is a mechanism to protect the person as well. The balance is in how far we go with that. Reasonable minds will disagree on how much the state should intervene in the person's life and how much support should be provided. There are supports. It is not just a pamphlet. There are supports and people are encouraged to use them.

If they are involved in criminal activity, undoubtedly part of their sentencing or those sorts of things could include elements about the compulsory participation in certain programs of that kind. The state is in a strong position to do that because the person has broken a criminal law, and that would be imposed by a court. However, the police or other parts of the state imposing health-based therapeutic services on people is probably not quite the right balance we want in these circumstances. If people are being pushed into these services rather than accepting that they have an issue and then taking it on, we are not likely to get the kinds of outcomes that we genuinely want, which is a recognition of their problem. It is a fine balance. Generally, the purpose of this legislation is the protection of the community and the protection of the individual from having access to alcohol and, therefore, the involvement of alcohol in their life.

Hon Maryka Groenewald: I was not implying that we are removing their autonomy. When I mentioned the banned drinker order or instances like that, I supposed that people who are on the banned drinkers register and have a history with police et cetera may be in quite a specific cohort and that may constitute grounds for service-provision people to come alongside them. I am mindful of that data being available. Can we look at the overlap between the super-vulnerable people who have been part of the Criminal Code and a BDR, if that is part of the tranche 2 considerations? Can feedback be given or, will there be reporting of some sort for the BDR?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Broadly speaking, it could be involved with the tranche 2 process. To be clear, we are trying to deal with tranche 1 here, and the department is still consulting at a preliminary level with other departments, including with the Department of Health, and seeking input from them about ways they can do that. The department that is responsible for this legislation does not have access to those kinds of services. It is not what they provide because they are not a therapeutic department, which would be the experience of the Department of Health or even the Department of Communities and things of that kind. There will be consultation in the tranche 2 process, but I do not want to overstate it and say that it will go further than it will. This bill and the department that is responsible for it have limitations for some of the broader social and health issues that we are talking about.

Hon Maryka Groenewald: This is my last question on that. As part of that bill, will there perhaps be some reports or progress reports? I suppose that numbers will be continually kept on the increases or changes in the BDR? Will that be done as part of the process?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: There is no kind of ongoing formalised reporting process; however, through, for example, parliamentary questions, a member could periodically ask questions about how many BDOs have been issued and in which regions they were issued. There will be a limit on how much detail we would go into because, obviously, the more granular the information, the more likely it is that a particular individual could be identified. I do not think that anyone would do that through this process. Generally, there is no reason that information such as how many BDOs there are would not be available. Obviously, if another area is declared—I do not think that is the right word—a banned drinking area, that would be a matter of public knowledge and public debate. As I say, a parliamentary question either on notice or without notice could be asked about those numbers, and that information would be provided through that process.

The process of how tranche 2 will be designed and how the development of that might look is not yet settled, but we have indicated that it would include consultation with industry. It would include internal consultation with the government departments that are affected, including the Western Australia Police Force, the Department of Health, the Department of Communities and the sorts of agencies that are affected and interested in this particular area.

Hon Tim Clifford: This leads to one of the questions I had about data collection before the second tranche of proposed changes. I note the increase in time and the extra two hours between 10:00 pm and 12:00 am. This is coming in advance of one of my amendments, which is a bit later. In New South Wales, when the time of access to purchase alcohol was increased from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm, it resulted in an additional 1,120 domestic violence assaults. Is there a mechanism for this? The minister noted the departments with which the government will be consulting. Are these departments proactively taking data to inform tranche 2? Are they taking data and numbers on the extra domestic violence matters between the times of 10:00 pm and 12:00 am?

I also note that people will be able to access and purchase alcohol through an app. Will there be any mechanism to track any issues that spill out from ordering alcohol? For example, when that has happened when there has been a domestic violence matter at a house and the police have come out to address it, they might ask the person whether they have purchased alcohol using the app. If they say yes, the police might ask whether they have purchased it once or multiple times within a certain timeframe. That is the sort of data I am trying to get at. Is that the sort of stuff that will be recorded to inform the second tranche of amendments and reforms?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: One of the issues with the kind of data collection that the member is talking about is its reliability. He mentioned a conversation about the police essentially surveying people who are involved at the time about whether or not they have purchased alcohol via an app. If a person is subject to a police action, including arrest, they would be warned that they do not have to make any disclosure. The problem is that we will not get a very complete dataset about those particular circumstances, because individuals will not be obligated to provide that information to police. If data has been collected—for example, through research that might be conducted by a health organisation or a university—and we are quite confident about the veracity and reliability of that data because they have taken into account variables, such as a representative cohort, absolutely that information would be there because we are interested in minimising alcohol-related harms.

This department and these advisers are not the Western Australia Police Force and so cannot say what information police collect. Police are obviously very busy and preoccupied when they are dealing with an incident, so they may not even contemplate asking questions about the manner in which a person purchased the alcohol at that particular point in time. As I say, if it then proceeds to a criminal investigation, detectives might get involved and that person is probably going to be legally represented. Because they are not required to assist the police's prosecution, they may or may not then disclose the circumstances of how that kind of offending came about. I think that is where that is. But we are interested in alcohol-related harms and that kind of information. As I say, to the degree that it is relevant to the tranche 2 reforms—if it gets to that stage—that information could be relevant to that investigation.

Hon Neil Thomson: Following on my line of questioning, the minister mentioned "reasonable minds" when he was talking about—

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Sorry, what did I mention?

Hon Neil Thomson: Reasonable minds having different points of view in relation to the level of data sharing that might occur—

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I think that was more in relation to the level of state intervention.

Hon Neil Thomson: Yes, I was going to get to that. Basically, it was in relation to the intervention by social workers or others when someone is on the BDR. I encourage the representing minister in this place, and maybe his colleague in the other place, to consider this as part of tranche 2 because I think there is a very strong case in the public interest for more data sharing. For example, when a caseworker or family support officer working with the Department of Communities interacts with a family, are they able to access the banned drinkers register to understand whether somebody at that premises, or someone they might be interacting with, is on the register? Is that information shared with the Department of Communities?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Only if the social worker was involved with the person being placed on the BDR in the first place. They would not otherwise have access to who is on the BDR. Licensees do not have access to the BDR list. When a banned person goes to purchase alcohol, licensees would obviously understand that that person is banned and they must act on that information, but they do not have a unified list of those sorts of things. Of course police would know, because who is on that list is part of their records. Again, in those circumstances that information is not shared more broadly with other government agencies. A person could, of course, choose to disclose that they are on the BDR and there is a banned drinker order against them, and obviously other members of the family might be aware of their circumstances, but if a social worker contacted the police and asked, "Is Joe Bloggs on the BDR?", police would not confirm whether or not that person is on it. They would not provide that information.

Hon Neil Thomson: It is a challenging area. I encourage the minister responsible in this space to look at that within an evidence-based framework, because we all know there is a web of connection between government agencies, non-government agencies and support services for people who have alcohol-related issues and are experiencing related matters. We know that happens. Often those people still then do not get the support and the wraparound services that they need because, as the minister has explained, the caseworker—or the family support officer, the social worker at the school or even the health practitioner—will not necessarily know, unless that case referral originally came from a BDO action. In my mind, I think we need to see more work done. We are certainly looking forward to tranche 2 and some sort of report from the government on how it will address these sensitive issues. I understand the issues of privacy and compulsion have to be maintained, but I think the overarching public need is for more wraparound services to effectively work for the long-term benefit of these individuals who have problems. I think, if it is my reasonable mind versus maybe the reasonable mind of someone else, I would err on the side of more information sharing rather than less, if the minister understands what I mean.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Yes, I do.

Hon Neil Thomson: I am saying that by way of encouragement, because one of my big complaints is there are no wraparound services. Everyone talks about it. As politicians, we all talk about needing more wraparound services, but it is pretty hard for wraparound services to wrap around that individual if they do not actually know the individual has a problem and do not have information about it. These issues are complex and challenging, and there is maybe a level of shame and there are some privacy issues, but someone being on the BDR is not at the higher end of confidentiality. I hope I am making sense. There are other privacy-related issues that we might want to protect that individual from. I think more transparency is a good thing, and I would encourage the minister to do that at tranche 2, if he can. That is not a question; that is a statement.

I will, if the minister does not mind, ask a couple of questions about the transportation of alcohol. The transportation of alcohol, the impact of sly grogging as it is commonly referred to, the black market and the relation to drugs, and Australia Post, are also big issues. Firstly, is it still possible for somebody—I think Hon Tim Clifford mentioned someone using an app—who is on the banned drinkers register, or in a banned drinker area, to purchase alcohol via Australia Post?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: As the member no doubt knows, the postal service is the Commonwealth's area of responsibility, so the state's capacity to place limitations on an Australia Post service is extremely limited as we do not have the jurisdictional basis on which to do it. Having said that, Australia Post cooperates with the department in relation to alcohol going into a banned drinker area. If Australia Post becomes aware that alcohol is going into that area, it will liaise with the department and the police, because it is still an offence for that person to have alcohol in a banned drinker area—the sly grogging the member was talking about.

It is also the case that those who are selling alcohol online should have regard to whether the final destination of that product is into a banned drinker area and not sell that alcohol into that banned drinker area. Of course, the laws here apply to the jurisdiction of Western Australia. If somebody were, for example, to buy alcohol on the internet from interstate or overseas, there is a limitation on how we can deal with those sellers of alcohol. But the receiving of alcohol in a banned drinker area is still a matter that is dealt with by the police and the department.

Hon Neil Thomson: I understand this is a complex area, but it does not fill me with confidence when the minister says it is the Commonwealth's responsibility; however, I understand the challenges. I understand that when people in WA purchase alcohol from a liquor store on the internet, there are restrictions. I have done it myself when I click the box to say I am not in a restricted area or whatever. I think the minister is right that that may not apply to sales on the internet from operators either interstate or potentially overseas, so there is less restriction on that internet sale.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: By way of interjection, the common law is probably more interested in the duties that apply to the alcohol being imported, which is what they would be concerned about at the border, to make sure there was a disclosure and the necessary duty was paid.

Hon Neil Thomson: I guess the challenge for us in WA where we have these laws, and the Northern Territory, which has this law as well, is: Where do we tackle the problem? I still hear that a lot of alcohol is going via Australia into these areas and these communities and into the hands of people, when it should not be. It may be an issue that is being magnified by disaffected bottle shop owners, who are saying they are under all these restrictions as they have to use the Takeaway Alcohol Management System and the BDR to check whether people are on the BDR when they purchase alcohol and there are all the volumetric limits. I can understand that small-business owners based in Carnarvon or Kununurra might be feeling a bit aggrieved if they know alcohol has been coming in through Australia Post.

Does the department have any visibility of the extent, by way of volume, of sales coming through Australia Post into these restricted areas given that it is going to be difficult to control? Is there any visibility at all and, if there is, how much alcohol is coming into these communities?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The best way I can describe it is the old Donald Rumsfeld way, which is that it is a known unknown. We do not know the volumes of that kind; that is the known unknown part of it. Again, the department and the police work with local Australia Post places. They might become aware of packages coming through the system that are, or appear to be, alcohol and are going into banned drinker areas, like a particular Aboriginal community and that kind of thing, and will contact the police to make them aware. The department, when it becomes aware, will also investigate to try to understand the source of that alcohol. The example given to me was that if the alcohol has come from New South Wales, the department will contact its counterpart in New South Wales to let it know that a licensee in NSW is supplying, or appears to be supplying, alcohol into a banned drinker area in Western Australia. Then their version of our department in New South Wales will counsel that licensee to say, "You should not be engaging in this particular behaviour because it is a breach of the laws of Western Australia." There is no capacity for us to effectively prosecute that particular individual, but that feedback is being given in the system.

We also have to recognise that people who are not licensed are providing the alcohol to those communities. They are selling their alcohol in an unlicensed black market manner. If we were able to get evidence to the authorities in the other states to enable them to deal with that—I do not know whether there have been any prosecutions—it could be the case that there would be sufficient evidence to satisfy the burden of proof that those people have broken the law.

Hon Neil Thomson: Are any Australia Post franchisees in those banned drinker areas on the local accords? They could be anywhere from Broome through to the Pilbara, right across the major towns in our region. I think Kalgoorlie is a BDA, and so there are no volumetric restrictions.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: To the best of our knowledge, we are not aware of them being involved. The accords are fairly informal, so groups can go in and out of a particular accord. I do not think anything would prevent a local Australia Post franchisee from engaging with it if they so desired and were inclined to do so, but we are not aware of any being formally involved at this stage.

Hon Neil Thomson: It might be something to think about going forward in terms of reaching out. Normally, the secretariat of the accord is managed by local police. Is that how it works or is it the department of racing and gaming?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: It could be the licensees or it could be the local government. There is not really a strict structure.

Hon Neil Thomson: Maybe the government could look at making the governance of accords more consistent and the ability to provide more support as part of tranche 2. That would obviously be in consultation with the liquor industry. I am not telling the liquor industry how to operate because, by and large, its members work very hard, but there is scope to include other suppliers of alcohol, such as Australia Post. That might by a good thing. The minister mentioned prosecutions. To the government's knowledge, has there been any prosecution of an Australia Post franchisee in relation to the secondary supply of alcohol to either a banned drinker or for going beyond the volumetric carriage limits or restrictions that apply to a local area?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: From the agency that is giving me advice at the table, no, but we do not know in relation to police. To be honest, unless the franchisee was a willing participant, I doubt they would be prosecuted because they would just be delivering the post. It is the same if someone sends drugs through the postal system; unless the franchisee was an active participant in that process, they are not likely to have had the necessary criminal intent—

Hon Neil Thomson: They do not necessarily know.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Yes. As I said, if they were running a racket to deliver alcohol into a banned drinker area using the postal service and other methods, they could be subject to prosecution. I doubt very much that that would happen because they are almost always very upstanding citizens in their community.

Hon Tim Clifford: I have a quick follow-up on that. Outside Australia Post, if someone on the banned drinkers register purchased alcohol through, say, the Uber app and that went directly to Liquorland, for example, would there be a mechanism for either Liquorland or Uber to be notified that the person was on the register? If that person walked into a local bottle shop or local pub and tried to order alcohol, they would be told, "Sorry; you're on the banned drinkers register." Does that mean that someone could order as they like, with no checks or balances? Will checks and balances occur only if they physically walk into Liquorland or their local pub?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: If someone buys something through an app, they have to identify themselves via the app, particularly for the purposes of payment. It has to be connected to a person's bank account, so they will be identifiable. The obligation is on the licensee—the Liquorlands of the world—because the transaction is between them and the purchaser. The Ubers of the world are the carriage service. The obligation rests with the licensee to ensure that they are not selling alcohol to people who are on the banned drinkers register or into a banned drinker area. Their obligation continues to exist notwithstanding the method of procuring the alcohol.

Hon Neil Thomson: Has the department done any assessment with the police of the impact of alcohol restrictions in a general sense and the use of drugs? I am raising this issue because one of the problems with alcohol restrictions generally is that they create an illegal logistics supply chain for alcohol. They encourage it. That is probably just a fact. As soon as some prohibition is imposed, it basically encourages enterprising felons to get involved in the business of selling alcohol in places that they should not. We have seen the progression of alcohol restrictions over the years, starting with Fitzroy Crossing—that was really the beginning of it all—then out to Halls Creek, Kununurra and Broome, and now expanding right through to Kalgoorlie to some extent, but the biggest impact is probably on Carnarvon and Gascoyne Junction. The problem is that this has created an illegal logistics supply chain, whether that is an 18-year-old kid who might be selling a few bottles of vodka to his mates or someone who is a bit more organised and is selling hundreds of litres of alcohol. These illegal logistics supply chains are a natural fit for some of the more organised crime gangs and drug distribution networks in Western Australia. They will infiltrate that network and use it as a way to turbocharge their drug distribution. I just think it is a natural problem that will involve both small-scale alcohol sales through to small-scale drug supply, which probably already occurs.

Young people are probably making a few bucks by selling illicit substances like cannabis and then they move into hard drugs. Has any research been done by the department, with the support of the police, on data on drug substitution? This is something I have raised in this place before. For example, people can purchase a bottle of vodka for $60 or $70. That is a lot of vodka; one can get very drunk on a bottle of vodka! I am told that people can purchase a needle preloaded with methamphetamine. The Fitpacks that are given out are allegedly taken by gangs and preloaded with concentrated meth. My understanding is that it costs $10, $15, or $20—I am just guessing. I have been told that people can purchase a needle preloaded with methamphetamine for a lot less than a bottle of vodka, which, as I said, costs $60. If it is illegal, people would probably pay $120 or $200 for that bottle. I heard that, during the pandemic, cartons of beer were not going for $50, which they can be purchased for at BWS, but were costing several hundred dollars. That is what I have heard. That seems to be a real problem. I am wondering whether the department has done any research with the police on the extent to which liquor restrictions are driving consumers into damaging illicit substances such as methamphetamine.

Sitting suspended from 1:00:00 pm to 2:00:00 pm

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Before we broke for the luncheon adjournment, Hon Neil Thomson asked a question, effectively, about whether there was a connection to organised crime. I think that is what he was getting at.

Hon Neil Thomson: Drug distribution and alcohol.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Yes. This department is not aware of any such connections. It may be a matter that would be more appropriately asked of the police. I recognise the possibility that people are engaging in unlawful activities in conjunction with other things. We have a police force to put energy into doing that. There is always the perverse outcome in many areas of public life when we try to place prohibitions of people's behaviours that they look for ways to get around it, and we try to address those unlawful behaviours. We are not aware of any particular correlation between those other unlawful activities and sly grogging activities and things of that kind. It is worth noting that alcohol is legal and those other matters definitely are not. I am not sure whether the same cohorts are involved in those activities, given that the penalties for being involved in drug distribution are significantly higher. It may be that they are not worried about it. I do not know about the profit margins and those things. I cannot take it much further because, as I say, I think it is really a question for the police because it is their job to enforce those kinds of behaviours.

Hon Neil Thomson: I thank you, but I would like one minor clarification. The distribution of alcohol in some of those regions is illegal.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I understand that, but the sanctions against drug trafficking is much different from what we are dealing with here.

Hon Neil Thomson: The number of breaches for a whole range of activities will increase under this bill, and, whilst we are on clause 1, I assume that includes an increase in the penalties for the secondary supply of alcohol.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I am happy to go into that.

Hon Neil Thomson: If the minister does that, I will not go into that in great detail later in the bill.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I can go through each of the penalties in the bill and indicate the change. Under section 109(1), the current maximum penalty for the unlawful sale of liquor is $20,000 and two years imprisonment, with a minimum $2,000 penalty. That maximum penalty will be increased to $50,000. We are increasing it by one-and-a-half times, or 150%; that is another way to skin the proverbial cat. The maximum penalty for carrying, offering or exposing liquor for sale unlawfully, which is also under section 109(1), will increase from $10,000, with a $1,000 minimum penalty, to $25,000. The maximum penalty for selling liquor to a person that the seller ought to have reasonably believed intended to sell the liquor unlawfully will increase from $20,000 and two years imprisonment with a minimum penalty of $2,000 to a maximum of $50,000. There are no changes to the carrying limits under section 109A. However, there will be an increase in the maximum penalty for exceeding the carriage limit. That will increase from $10,000 to $40,000. I think they are all the penalty increases under the sly grogging arrangements that we are talking about.

Hon Neil Thomson: I will go to the issue of who is impacted by the BDR. I quickly note that we did not get the full Deloitte report. Apparently it is commercial-in-confidence and other material in it was unable to be distributed. Has the department been able to provide detailed data from the BDR on the demographics and the nature of the persons who are on the BDR in order to help develop a new health and public health policy?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Sorry, to provide to whom, because you said to "provide"?

Hon Neil Thomson: Who owns the BDR data? I assume it is the department of liquor, or whatever it is called.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The department owns the data, for want of a better word.

Hon Neil Thomson: Has that been utilised in any way to help tailor health responses in our community?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: As I indicated to the member, the data is with the Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety. Because of the personalised nature of the data, it is not shared outside of its system. It is possible that the department could share depersonalised data about the kind of cohort information that the member is talking about, such as the age ranges, locations, gender and those sorts of things, but not in a way that could potentially identify an individual. There are quite strict limits on how the Director of Liquor Licensing can use that information beyond the purpose of what is provided for in the act. At this stage, for example, it is not fed into the population health data for the Department of Health that collects that kind of thing, but theoretically it probably could be provided in a de-identified manner.

Hon Neil Thomson: I will change tack and look at the impact of the extended banned drinkers register on retail liquor outlets. What feedback has been received from industry associations—I think I asked this question during the briefing—such as the Liquor Store Association and the Australian Hotels Association about the cost and staff impacts as they relate to the management of the banned drinkers register?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: There is no direct cost for retail liquor outlets because the infrastructure is provided to them by the department. The only cost that is hard to calculate is the additional time it might take them to process that, but that is a fairly low-level activity in the sense that they have to receive and enter the information into the system. It is not a heavy burden on them. As organisations that want to be responsible providers of alcohol in the community, that part of it is not particularly onerous.

Hon Neil Thomson: I have received feedback that there are some costs. In saying that, there has been generally positive feedback about the system now that it has been in operation for a while. There were some teething problems when it was first implemented, but those have largely been dealt with as a result of software improvements. Has the department received feedback on the cost of retail prices in regional areas as a result of the imposition of the banned drinkers register and alcohol restrictions generally? I think there might be price constraints in terms of minimum pricing, which might have nothing to do with the act—it might be due to liquor accords decisions—but can the minister provide feedback on that as well?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: We do not have any data that indicates there has been a consequential increase in the retail cost of liquor in areas in which there are banned drinker areas. Given the areas in which Hon Neil Thomson spends his time, in Carnarvon, a $15 minimum price floor was applied to bottles of wine through the liquor accord. It was not imposed on them; rather, they proposed it through the liquor accord process and it is now in place as the minimum floor price.

Hon Neil Thomson: I am thinking of the retirees who like to buy cheap wine. Noting the volumetric restriction is two bottles of wine or a bottle of spirits or a carton of mid-strength beer in the case of Carnarvon, has consideration been given to the amount of alcohol that is sold and making it a bit more consistent across the north of the state? It always perplexes me why people cannot buy boxed wine, for example, which is a lot cheaper and has a lower alcohol percentage than one-litre bottles of spirits. That seems to be a lot more damaging than one carton of wine. Has an analysis been done as part of this review or will one be done as part of tranche 2?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I draw Hon Neil Thomson back to the bill, which does not deal with liquor restrictions. I am conscious of the fact that it is the last sitting day of the year, and we want to make progress. Some of the future policy ideas the member is proposing are not appropriately directed to me because I am only the representative minister. I have been informed that the kind of consistent rules that the member was talking about are not being considered in tranche 2. There are also problems in having a consistent approach across every BDA because when the department makes inquiries as to whether a BDA is appropriate, it has to consider the circumstances of the area in which it is seeking to potentially impose a BDA. In those circumstances, the factors that relate to problematic drinking can be different in different areas—the different kind of liquor that might be available, the capacity of people to pay for liquor and a range of other things are taken into consideration. That is why a uniform approach is not taken across all areas. There are differences between Carnarvon, Kalgoorlie, Port Hedland, Derby and Broome. There are obviously different aspects involved with that.

Hon Neil Thomson: I understand that I was probably stretching it a little bit in terms of what is in this bill, but I do not often get an opportunity to talk about liquor control, which is important; it all interacts. I will not waste time.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I am not trying to quibble with you, member. I am just trying to keep us on track.

Hon Neil Thomson: No. The minister has been very generous with his responses; I am not upset.

I go back to the compliance of retailers. I speak to pretty much every owner when I visit a bottle shop to buy a bottle of sauvignon blanc or whatever I buy; I will not go into details for Hansard, but I frequent those venues from time to time and I always have a chat with the licensee or the retailers. They have varying degrees of frustration with the rules. It would be fair to say that some of them feel that the level of scrutiny they have to put on some of their customers is too high and should be directed at those customers who are problematic—who come into their stores and walk out with things without paying for them. They report such theft to the police, but those issues are not properly addressed. They feel that sometimes the response is not as good as it could be. It is a tough job selling alcohol, but that is the responsibility that comes with selling a substance that can cause people harm. Going back to the costs of this system—Hon Julie Freeman mentioned IT costs—who will pay for the management of TAMS and the BDR going forward? Will the state continue to bear the cost or will it be funded by retailers?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The cost of the banned drinkers register system is currently met by government and the plan is for government to continue to meet the costs of the BDR.

Hon Neil Thomson: I thank the minister for that. My last set of general questions are about support services and drying out facilities across our north. I cannot go through town by town, but do we have enough support services across those areas with the banned drinkers register at the moment, minister?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Member, it is a hard question for someone like me, who is not in that particular space, to answer. We have worked and do work with both other government agencies and private organisations, but, again, the department here is not in that particular space. It is a health issue and a social issue and a number of other things. The member asked whether there are enough of those services. To be honest with you, it is a "how long is a wet piece of string" kind of question. I am sure an argument can be made for more services, greater quality services and a greater number of services, but I cannot answer that as a general, overall policy question. I am sure that the member can drill down with more questions directly to this minister and to the Minister for Health about the kind of services that the state provides when we get back next year. But as I say, the question is really beyond me today.

Hon Neil Thomson: I thank the minister for that. I remember that I do actually have one more question someone asked me to ask and it can only be asked at clause 1, but the minister may not be able to answer it. I believe the national tourism conference—I think that is what it is called—is happening in Carnarvon next year. I know there is some concern that we will have all these people coming to Carnarvon and it has restrictions on the sale of alcohol on Sundays and Mondays. I wonder whether there are provisions within the legislation that will allow for the lifting of those restrictions during that conference. The minister may not be able to answer and I might ask it as a question without notice next year, but someone did ask me to ask.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Ask it with some notice, though.

Hon Neil Thomson: I will with some notice. I wonder whether there is any scope to ease those restrictions in Carnarvon during peak periods of tourism intensity?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Member, whether or not that happens in Carnarvon for that particular event is a matter that will get determined. Technically, the Director of Liquor Licensing can provide, for want of a better term, relief on restrictions for a period of time, but the Minister for Regional Development made the point to me that he would prefer that people do their drinking in licensed premises, not their hotel rooms, because that is much better for the businesses and for the community.

Hon Neil Thomson: I am just going through my paperwork here.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: You keep saying it's your last one and then you find another.

Hon Neil Thomson: I know, but I am making sure it is because I have been sent a few questions from other people. They ask me, "Could you ask this? Could you ask that?" They are all good questions, by the way, minister. I have crossed out a lot that I have already covered, but I have missed one here. This is verbatim: Can you ask the house what the system of referral is between the department of racing and gaming and the Department of Health, the Mental Health Commission, the Department of Communities and the Department of Housing and Works? The minister may not be able to answer that question and we did sort of cover it a bit, but I just want to make sure I have covered it off.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Between this department and those other departments, there is not a system of referral per se. I mean, this department is concerned with the regulation of alcohol and those other departments have other responsibilities when it comes to the wellbeing of our community. A medical practitioner, for example, whether they are within a public hospital or community health provider and those sorts of things, obviously is able to refer people to be put onto the banned drinkers register. There is obviously an interaction at that particular point, but the focus of the department is not on, you know, those other areas. It is focused on the BDOs and the BDR and the management, or regulation, of licensees.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 put and passedClause 4: Section 3 amended

2:27:41 PM

Hon Julie Freeman: How accessible will business continuity orders be to small regional licensees—your family owned pubs or cellar doors—facing a temporary hardship, such as a natural disaster or an illness?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: What I will do is read this out, hopefully, to give the member a better understanding of what the business continuity orders are and what we are doing here.

Under the current act, licensed premises may continue trading for up to 28 days under a protection order if the licensee dies or becomes unable to carry on the business due to circumstances such as illness or accidents. The interim authorisation can be exercised only by a prescribed person, ensuring that only individuals who meet specific eligibility criteria are permitted to carry on the business during the interim period, and 28 days is also the time allowed for an application to be made for an authorisation to sell alcohol and carry on a business under the licence. How does the bill strengthen the supports for the business's continuity? It extends the time the licensed premises can continue to operate by increasing the time to apply for the authorisation to continue to operate from 28 days to three months. Effectively, all we are doing is changing the timeframe. We are not introducing a new concept or provision. We are just providing for the 28 days to be extended to three months. Obviously, one of the very specific circumstances in which we contemplate this will be appropriate is when a licensee passes away. I am sure that the member can appreciate that 28 days may be quite a burden on a business and on a family if they have lost an important person. I suspect that these circumstances are usually unexpected because, obviously, if a business understood that a person was going to pass away, it would have put measures in place to deal with that. These are the sorts of circumstances in which a person has passed away unexpectedly and people therefore are in a bind. They are in grief. As I think appropriate, we are extending the time from 28 days to three months, and I think that would be welcomed by most of those small organisations.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 5 put and passedClause 6: Section 87 amended

2:31:35 PM

Hon Maryka Groenewald: I have a quick question about annual reporting. Why was the time for the director's report to Parliament extended from 28 days to three months?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: We are a bit confused about the member's question because this clause really relates to the business continuity provisions that already exist under section 87 of the Liquor Control Act. I do not know whether the member has a copy of the blue bill, but if she were to have a look at it—

Hon Maryka Groenewald: "Section 87 amended" is amending the annual reporting of the Liquor Commission. It talks about the key changes. There is the extension of the deadlines from 28 days to three months.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: That may be another provision. What it says here is that the title of section 87 is being changed from "Protection orders, grant and term of etc." to "Grant and term of business continuity orders". It says:

(1) Where —

…

(c) a person, being a person who is authorised to carry on the business of a licensee under section 86 but who wishes to carry on that business for a period in excess of …

There it currently says 28 days, but that will be amended to three months—

applies within that period of 3 months …

I am not sure where we are at.

Hon Maryka Groenewald: I will look at the bill. Apologies, minister.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 7 to 12 put and passedClause 13: Section 60 amended

2:34:24 PM

Hon Tim Clifford: I have amendments to clauses on the notice paper. Is it okay to give an explanation before I move the new clauses?

The Deputy Chair (Hon Simon Ehrenfeld): You can speak as you wish.

Hon Tim Clifford: Thanks. Sorry, I am a bit tired after last night. The clauses and amendments that I am about to move are a bit of a no-brainer. They relate to the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, a body that sent the letter in front of me to the minister about amendments that it would like to see put forward to protect the health of the community from the impacts of alcohol and from access to alcohol. I would like to read a couple of points from the letter, which will go some way to explaining why the amendments are important. I quote:

Unfortunately, the measures in the tabled Bill increase alcohol availability and accessibility, by increasing trading hours, venue capacity, and deregulating licensing provisions, without introducing any of the needed restrictions on delivery timeframes and advertising.

In December 2023, the former Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries proposed to the Harm Minimisation Working Group on Liquor Reform, (of which FARE was a member), a 2-hour safety pause between alcohol order and delivery. This Bill is a sadly a significant backwards step from that proposal and will not meet the Premier's National Cabinet commitment.

It is critical to ensure that the Bill is amended to incorporate the following measures:

Adopt harm minimisation as the paramount object in the Liquor Licensing Act and include gender-based violence in the definition of alcohol harm. This helps to clarify the prioritisation of community wellbeing over commercial interests.

Amend delivery timeframes to between 10am and 10pm. This reduces the risk of alcohol-related violence and suicide, which increase later at night.

Prevent the rapid delivery of alcohol into homes by establishing a 2-hour safety pause between order and delivery. This prevents impulsive and higher-risk alcohol use.

Of course, I flagged some statistics before during debate on clause 1 of this bill, and they provide some of the reasoning behind this amendment. In New South Wales, from what they could gather, the delivery of alcohol between 10:00 pm and 11:00 pm results in an additional 1,120 domestic violence assaults. This really goes to the heart of why it is important. I understand that a second tranche of reforms has been foreshadowed, but I think it is important that we move these amendments today. In the lead-up to the debate of this bill, we repeatedly asked for access to the Deloitte report, which we have not gained access to, so we have not really seen the recommendations. Some of the background information contained in that report might help to inform some of this debate. Who knows—we could have read that report and it could have inspired other amendments, or we could have worked with the government on some of the findings in the report, and the government probably could have moved its own amendments to ensure that all measures could be in place to protect the community from the harms of alcohol. I seek leave to move the amendments standing in my name en bloc.

The Deputy Chair: The member is seeking to move his amendment to clause 13 and new clauses 13A and 14A—everything.

Hon Tim Clifford by leave: I move:

Page 8, after line 3—To insert:

(da) delete paragraph (d);

New Clause 13A

Page 8, after line 33—To insert:

13A. Section 65 amended

After section 65(1)(a) insert:

(aa) that if the liquor is delivered from, but not on, the licensed premises, the liquor sold—

(i) must be delivered at least 2 hours after the time the order is placed for the liquor; and

(ii) must be delivered only between 10 am and 10 pm;

New Clause 14A

Page 9, after line 6—To insert:

14A. Section 5 amended

(1) Before section 5(1) insert:

(1A) The paramount object of this Act is to minimise harm or ill-health to people, or any group of people, due to the use of liquor, including gender-based violence caused by the use of liquor.

(2) Delete section 5(1)(b).

(3) In section 5(2) delete "primary objects of this Act and also to" and insert:

paramount object, the primary objects and

(4) In section 5(3) delete "primary objects referred to in subsection (1) and the secondary objects referred to in subsection (2), the primary objects take precedence." and insert:

objects of this Act—

(a) the paramount object takes precedence over the primary and secondary objects; and

(b) the primary objects take precedence over the secondary objects.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: As has been indicated to the member, behind the Chair, the government is not supportive of his amendments, and I will go through a response for him so that we can get some important points on the record. The member has, firstly, proposed changes about liquor delivery requirements through an amendment to clause 13 and the insertion of new clause 13A. The amendment to clause 13 would remove the existing late delivery requirements for liquor stores relating to extended trading permits under section 60(4)(d) of the Liquor Control Act 1988. New clause 13A would impose a new requirement of a two-hour delay between ordering liquor and its delivery and restrictions on delivery times to between 10:00 am and 10:00 pm for deliveries from a licensed premise.

In relation to a two-hour delay, the government delivered reforms in 2022 introducing requirements that any same-day delivery of alcohol must be made by a person who has undergone responsible service of alcohol training and that the person must deliver the alcohol to a person not affected by alcohol. With respect to restricting delivery times, as the opportunities for lawfully delivering alcohol after 10:00 pm are already limited, we do not think legislative change at this time appears to be warranted. I am informed that although liquor stores trade until 10:00 pm, if they apply for a late delivery extended trading permit, the sale must occur before 10:00 pm and the delivery made before midnight. I am advised that, as at the end of August 2025, only around 20 licensed liquor stores of about 680 across Western Australia hold this extended trading permit, which is about 3% of all liquor stores. I am further informed that over 700 hotels and taverns are authorised to sell packaged liquor and may offer a delivery service, which may be up to midnight. However, it appears that this trading model is generally done by a minority of that cohort. Importantly, appropriate consultation with industry and other key stakeholders on any proposed changes to these longstanding trading arrangements would be required.

The member's other proposed amendment, to insert new clause 14A, is to make minimising harm from the use of liquor, including gender-based violence, the paramount objective of the Liquor Control Act 1988. Harm minimisation is already one of the primary objects of the act relating to the minimisation of harm or ill health caused to people or any group of people due to the use of liquor. For example, the Director of Liquor Licensing is obliged to, and does, consider harm minimisation in her decisions and takes this responsibility very seriously. The act also has other primary objects that aim to balance harm minimisation with the appropriate regulation of liquor and catering for consumer requirements having regard to the proper development of liquor, tourism and other hospitality industries in this state. Including gender-based violence as an object of the act would also need detailed policy consideration of how to practically apply it across the duties and powers contained within the act.

The Liquor Control Amendment Bill 2025 is the first tranche of the government's liquor amendments, and the bill will introduce proposals to reduce red tape and create efficiency, while strengthening harm-minimisation measures such as substantial increases in penalties for sly-grogging offences, enhancing compliance and enforcement provisions and making the banned drinkers register permanent in the regional areas where it is operating and already making a positive impact. Importantly, the banned drinkers register provision in the act provides for the Western Australian police to issue a banned drinker order if a person is charged with an alcohol-related offence, a police order is issued due to alcohol-related family and domestic violence or the person has been taken into protective custody or issued several alcohol-related infringement notices. In addition, the Director of Liquor Licensing can issue a banned drinker order on the application of a medical practitioner or social worker. These protective orders stop a person who is experiencing significant harms or is causing harms to others, such as an unborn child, from getting access to alcohol.

In the WA Government priorities that were launched recently this year, the government has given a public commitment to continue working to end family and domestic violence. We acknowledge that alcohol is often a contributing factor to domestic violence, and we will continue to look at ways to tackle this complex issue. I am pleased to advise, as we have previously discussed, that a second tranche of liquor legislation reform is already in the policy development stage. The department is engaging with key stakeholders with a view to implementing further legislative amendments. These stakeholders, including harm-minimisation advocacy organisations, have been providing input about possible changes to the act that would best serve our community.

On that basis, we do not support the amendments, not because we do not agree with the spirit of what the member is trying to achieve, but because we think a process should be undertaken prior to further change of this kind. The second tranche has already commenced, so I think there are opportunities for what the member is talking about to be considered and for consultation to occur.

Hon Julie Freeman: Although the opposition commends the intent behind the amendments, we do not support the amendments.

Amendment and new clauses put and negatived.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 14 put and passedClause 15: Section 103 amended

2:46:24 PM

Hon Julie Freeman: Is the insertion of "in writing" intended to formalise notifications that were previously permissible verbally? What is the practical shift that this will bring?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: It is to formalise the process to make it clear so that there is, in effect, an evidence trail of the notice. It is just to tidy up that particular thing.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 16: Section 107 deleted

2:47:27 PM

Hon Julie Freeman: The section on the loss of lodger's property will be deleted due to redundancy. Can the minister please explain what this is and why it is being removed?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: A hotel licensee's insurance policy should cover the matters contemplated by section 107—that is, the hotel licensee should ensure that their policy covers the loss of a lodger's property. The cost to the licensee is the insurance cost and any excess payable. The act's liability amount is currently set in regulation at only $200 per item, which would not cover most losses in those circumstances.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 17 put and passedClause 18: Section 126 amended

2:48:53 PM

Hon Julie Freeman: Western Australia does not have a digital driver's licence yet, so I am curious to know what forms of digital identification will be acceptable in the interim. What forms of digital ID will people who come from the eastern states and overseas be able to use?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Member, this is an enabling provision. According to the advice I have received, people from interstate are presenting digital IDs currently. There is no provision for them to be accepted in that format, so we are just effectively enabling a licensee to accept a digital ID as proof of identity. Honestly, whether or not we get digital IDs for drivers' licences and that sort of thing in Western Australia is not an area I have any knowledge of and neither does the department; that is for the Department of Transport and Major Infrastructure. In time, I suspect we will have such documents available to us here. It seems inevitable as we get more and more wedded to our smart devices.

Hon Julie Freeman: Would the Australia Post digital ID or the Services Australia digital ID be acceptable in the interim?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: This will create an opportunity for regulations to be made that would prescribe which digital passes would be acceptable. Currently, the forms of ID that are acceptable are a current Australian driver's licence with a photograph, a current passport from any country or a current WA Photo Card. The following ones have regulations: a current Australian learner's permit with a photograph, a current hardcopy of the Keypass issued by Australia Post, a WA proof-of-age card and a current card issued by another state or territory that is equivalent to any of the above. The Services Australia identity that the member talked about is not currently recognised. I suppose it is within what is possible when those regulations are made if it is considered appropriate. I am not sure whether there is a photographic part to that ID. That is likely to be a key requirement so that somebody does not present somebody else's phone as their identification. It will be possible as time and technology progresses to regulate which of those things are actually acceptable forms of proof of identity under these regulations. I was also told by the advisers at the table that apparently this Keypass ID, which is issued by Australia Post, is being phased out anyway, so that is going to fall off the list in time.

Hon Neil Thomson: I will just clarify. Do we not yet have digital ID in WA for our motor vehicle licences?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Not that is recognised under these provisions.

Hon Neil Thomson: When we do have it, which I hope happens soon, this provision will enable the use of that—

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: That is correct.

Hon Neil Thomson: Are we the only state that does not have a digital ID?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I do not have the advisers at the table who can answer whether we are the only state without it. It is not their area of speciality. That would sit with the Office of Digital Government or something else, not this particular department. It may be the case, but we do not know, and I am not going to be able to get an answer to that for the member.

Hon Neil Thomson: It is a pretty sad state of affairs. I have stood outside the liquor store and seen people go into the shop. It sounds like I frequent those stores a lot. I have been giving a lot of examples, but I am just telling the minister from firsthand experience that poor, old travellers from across the state arrive and they cannot buy anything, or they have to go back to their car or find some other ID. It is good news that we are getting this here. Are we going to do any advertising interstate to let the grey nomads know that they will be able to come and use the digital ID in WA or are we going to just let it happen?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I do not think we have any plans to advertise: "Come to WA and flash your digital ID around. We are such a great progressive place." I think what will happen is the circumstance the member described. When people furnish their digital ID, it will now be accepted and they will not have to go and dig up some other form of ID. I think those grey nomads, whom I know the member—

Hon Neil Thomson: Talks to.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: No. I was going to say the member relates to them. Those grey nomads are going to be able to get on with their relaxing. My dad is one of those grey nomads. I do not even know where he is most of the time—some caravan park somewhere.

Hon Tim Clifford: I just have a really quick question regarding the digital ID. I have heard rumours that there may be a trial going on in the background. Has there been any interaction between that proposed trial and the drafters of this bill in case, going forward, that will become a mechanism folks will use? Is that something the minister can table? I think I have asked a question about this before, so I just was not too sure.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I am reluctant to respond to rumours. This clause allows for the regulation of identity documents to be an acceptable proof of identity. There are efforts to develop a digital driver's licence for Western Australia, but I cannot give the member any more information about that because it is a matter for the Department of Transport. Once it is fully functional, it can be added as one of the digital IDs that can be accepted by the promulgation of regulation.

Hon Neil Thomson: If this bill passes today without amendments—it does not have to go to the other place—when will this provision take effect in terms of using digital ID at our local—

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: It will be the day after royal assent, which will be Saturday. Under the Interpretation Act, it will be Monday, but that is fine.

Hon Neil Thomson: It is coming soon. Excellent.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 19 put and passedClause 20: Section 152YK amended

2:57:21 PM

Hon Julie Freeman: This clause has been amended from the Commissioner of Police "must give" to:

… must —

(a) ensure all reasonable steps are taken to give the banned drinker a written notice stating that the order is revoked;

What does the clause mean by "all reasonable steps"? Can the minister describe what steps this would include? Is there any issue with tracking down these people to give them a written notice?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: This is one for which the member should have the blue bill. I am not trying to be condescending by the way. It is actually really helpful when doing this because it puts the really obscure way that this is written in context, which is a bit different from some other bills we have been dealing with recently which will become new acts in time as opposed to amendments to existing acts.

If the member looks at section 152YH of the blue bill, it is a change of format; it is not changing the meaning at all. It currently reads that the "Commissioner of Police must ensure" and then (a) and (b), and the drafters in their infinite wisdom have decided to write that the "Commissioner of Police must" and then, (a), "ensure", and, (b), "ensure". In fact, I will show the member.

Hon Julie Freeman: It's all good.

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: It is all good. It is just the infernal Parliamentary Counsel's Office drafters and their wicked ways!

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 21 to 31 put and passedClause 32: Section 115 amended

3:01:14 PM

Hon Simon Ehrenfeld: Briefly, I will not read the introduction of section 115, but I ask whether the minister could tell us how a licensee would know of the person's criminal status?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: The amendment we are dealing with relates only to the penalties; it does not create a new offence. This is an existing provision. If the member reads the clause, he will see the language used is somewhat antiquated. The member's question about how a licensee would know is a bit outside the scope of what we are dealing with. I might add that in some respects, licensees have obligations to make themselves aware of certain colourful personalities. Some people are so notorious that they are not to enter onto a licensed premises. If a licensee ought to have known, or knows, and then serves that person—I am not going to say any names, but we can contemplate the kind of people we are talking about—they commit an offence under their licence and will have these additional penalties imposed on them. Depending on the kind of licensed establishment, some of these licensees will have very good knowledge about who and who is not a notorious individual.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 33 to 40 put and passedClause 41: Section 98 amended

3:04:05 PM

Hon Julie Freeman: This clause will increase hours on Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day, but not for takeaway alcohol. I am wondering why no takeaway alcohol? Can a licensee apply for a licence to sell takeaway alcohol on those days?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: It is probably better to understand this from where we have come from in this regard. Essentially, under current practice, there are a multitude of applications to trade or extend trade on those particular days. Effectively, we will remove the requirement to make that application and therefore reduce the administrative burden on those licensees to trade for that extended period. In effect, we already have extended trading on those days. Licensees just have to go through a process, which obviously places some burden on them. We did not want to go further than that and have takeaway alcohol included because of the solemnity of the days. Obviously, the licensees we are contemplating might be places that are serving alcohol in—how would I describe it?—a relaxed, comfortable environment that is good for social cohesion and all those sorts of things as opposed to people buying considerably larger amounts of alcohol and then taking it away and drinking it in a separate location. In terms of whether or not a licensee could make an application to sell takeaway alcohol on these days, they can, but the practice is to refuse them.

Hon Julie Freeman: Just to follow that up, what about a cellar door, for example, for which a big part of the business model is for people to come and have lunch and wine and walk out with a box of wine. Are they able to do that on Good Friday, Anzac Day and Christmas Day?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: It is not the case with takeaway alcohol. Restaurants could continue and still have the tastings and all those sorts of things, but people could not then buy however much alcohol they might choose to buy on those particular days.

Hon Simon Ehrenfeld: Being of a non-Christian background, I certainly do not want to be saying how people of Christian faith should be celebrating Good Friday and Christmas Day. I am not a veteran either and do not want to be lecturing on how veterans should be celebrating ANZAC Day et cetera. What consultation has there been with relevant church or veteran groups on this change?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: We covered off on consultation in quite a lot of detail during consideration of clause 1. A number of groups that have an interest in those particular days were consulted. They include, for example, Catholic and Anglican organisations and the Returned and Services League of Australia. As the member can imagine, there is a diversity of views on it.

As a non-secular government, or is it a secular government? I can never remember which one we are. As a non-religious government, we make laws for all Western Australians. Those two days are incredibly important to certain individuals in our community, but we have to recognise that for others they are not. Anzac Day is a day of solemnity and not of celebration but of commemoration for the contribution that was made. It is also part of the Anzac tradition, and it used to be part of the military service, that people would get an alcohol ration, so alcohol on Anzac Day is not generally a matter that is inconsistent with the traditions of our servicemen and women.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 42 to 69 put and passedClause 70: Part 2 replaced

3:10:44 PM

Hon Julie Freeman: This clause deals with abolishing the Liquor Commission. It transfers powers to the State Administrative Tribunal and gives significant power to the director. Is the minister satisfied that the position of director can shoulder the responsibility without the Liquor Commission?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: I am told that it will not have a practical impact on the director. The director is already undertaking those functions, and so the abolition of the Liquor Commission and transferring that administrative power to SAT is consistent with what the government has been doing with all sorts of things as it gets through the statute book. In fact, we had a debate about some of that during the course of the Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Bill. Matters can be directed to SAT instead of the Reproductive Technology Council because we are abolishing that council. The member will see that, across the years, these things have been done slowly, but they are ending up in SAT. SAT is a specialist administrative tribunal that has a range of members sitting on it who have different experiences and typically work in areas with the skill set they bring to the tribunal.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 71 to 103 put and passedClause 104: Section 152YT amended

3:13:04 PM

Hon Julie Freeman: Apologies, Deputy Chair, I am starting to feel the effects of late finish last night. I am getting slower and slower in my reaction times.

This relates to the banned drinker order being applied for by a medical practitioner or social worker, for example. This requires the director to provide written notice to the applicant of a banned drinker order, but the amendment will delete this. If someone, particularly a medical professional or social worker, applies to put someone on the BDR and the director approves the application, why would the applicant not be notified in writing of the outcome of the application?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: We are trying to get down to the brass tacks of what is happening here. We are removing the Liquor Commission and some of these provisions relate to that bespoke process. In the decision-making, the provisions of the State Administrative Tribunal Act will come into force and effect. That includes section 20 specifically, "Notice of decision and right to have it reviewed to be given by decision-maker". The director is a decision-maker in this circumstance. Section 20 provides:

(1) If this subsection applies to a reviewable decision, the decision-maker is to give any person who has a right under an enabling Act or section 44(3) to have the decision reviewed by the Tribunal written notice of —

(a) the decision; and

(b) that right.

(2) Subsection (1) applies to any reviewable decision unless —

(a) the decision does not adversely affect the interests of the person who has that right and …

The provision goes on. I do not think I need to read it all out in detail. What it is not doing, effectively, is removing the obligation on the director to provide written reasons and information about the decision. One of the key principles of administrative law is that a decision can be considered—I am trying to think of the right word—appealable if a decision-maker has not given sufficient certainty and reasons for making their decision. Not only do those administrative law principles apply, but also the provisions of section 20 apply. Effectively, what we have here will become redundant, so the drafting has been tidied up to make it focus more on the obligations on the director that sit outside the section 20 process.

Hon Julie Freeman: Just to follow up on that, it came to mind while the minister was talking that if all these things will go through State Administrative Tribunal processes and the majority of the people who are on the banned drinkers register and who are likely to be given one of these orders live in regional and remote areas, because that is where these things are in place, will there be anything in place to make sure that they can access the State Administrative Tribunal and those processes with some level of fairness and equity, given their remoteness?

Hon Matthew Swinbourn: There are much lower hurdles to get over to access the State Administrative Tribunal than to perhaps access a court. I can only speak generally in terms of the impact for regional people. The tribunal has the power to hear matters via video link and things of that kind, which can help people in remote areas, particularly if they are able to present at a courthouse that has those facilities or the local community resource centre and those sorts of things. There is considerably more flexibility around the SAT processes than might apply to the District Court, the Supreme Court or some other jurisdiction. The other issue is that SAT is a full-time, ongoing administrative tribunal, so its resources and practices are much better than having this bespoke Liquor Commission, which, in effect, is a single subject matter body with limitations in terms of how many people can sit on it, who can deal with it and where it can sit. I suspect it probably uses the facilities of the SAT if it needs to run hearings in any event—it has just been confirmed that it does. Those additional considerations for regional people are already part of the core business of the SAT. I think the member can be assured that even though we cannot remove the tyranny of distance and poor internet and those sorts of things that many regional people face, it will hopefully make access less of a barrier for them.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 105 to 135 put and passedTitle put and passed

Report

Bill reported, without amendment, and the report adopted.

Third reading

Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Matthew Swinbourn (Minister for the Environment), and passed.