City Dry Zone

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
4th July 2001

Sandra Kanck
Deputy Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2001 Autumn Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the Attorney- General questions about the declaration of a dry zone in the City of Adelaide.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: On 2 April the Adelaide City Council passed a resolution which reads in part:

Council instructs the CEO to submit to the Liquor Licensing Commissioner an application together with necessary supporting material for a dry zone declaration covering all city public roads and squares on a 12 month trial basis.

responsibility is now with council to move ahead with a dry zone trial and effect the appropriate planning approvals.

In that release he committed the state government to providing $500 000 towards the establishment of the euphemistically named city stabilisation facility-I would prefer to call it a sobering up centre. The City Messenger of 6 June this year carried a report by Elizabeth Rowe in which Elliott Johnston QC is quoted as saying that the Liquor Licensing Commissioner has: "no jurisdiction whatever to consider such an application or to make such a declaration."

"the fact the commissioner sometimes receives suggestions for dry zone declarations and passes them on to the Attorney-General has no significance for the above matters."

In the same article the Liquor Licensing Commissioner, Bill Pryor, confirms that approving a dry zone was not within his jurisdiction.

Despite Mr Pryor's comments, the Attorney-General in the same article is quoted as saying that he sees no logic in Mr Johnston's arguments. Yet in the Messenger of 27 June, the Lord Mayor, Alfred Huang, confirms that the decision to declare a dry zone rests with the state government and that a steering committee would implement the plan.

Before issuing his media statement that erroneously implies that Adelaide City Council has the legal power to declare dry zones, did the Premier seek advice from the Attorney-General regarding the capacity of the council to declare a dry zone?

What precisely did the Attorney mean when he labelled Elliott Johnston's comments on the matter `illogical'?

Does the Attorney acknowledge that the state government, and in particular his department and not the Adelaide City Council or the Liquor Licensing Commissioner, is empowered to declare a dry zone via regulations under section 131 of the Liquor Licensing Act?

Do the state government's `Dry Area Guidelines' stipulate that a proper evaluation of dry areas must be conducted?

Can the Attorney give details of any evaluation or review that has been carried out on any or all of the 62 dry zones currently in force around the state? If so, will the Attorney- General table a copy of the stakeholder strategy for each zone, and a list of who the stakeholders were that were involved?

Can the Attorney particularly give the Council a report on the effectiveness of dry zones in the Hindley Street and Rundle Mall precincts, in the light of high offending rates in both those areas, including crimes involving alcohol and violence?

What evidence can the Attorney offer that the imposition of dry zones has led to improved public safety in the city?

Has cabinet signed off on the $500 000 pledge for a sobering up centre? If so, who will cover the recurrent costs associated with operating such a facility?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN (Attorney-General): I am obviously going to have to take a lot of those questions on notice. I cannot remember all of the questions that were raised, but I will give some attention to them. The fact is that for the last 10 years there have been guidelines promulgated by cabinet for dealing with dry area applications. They were promulgated by a Labor government. When we came to office in 1993 we looked at them. We determined that they were an appropriate framework for dealing with the applications for dry area declarations, and we have continued to follow those guidelines. There was one modification and that related to the length of currency of dry zones in some circumstances. But apart from that we are following guidelines which have been in place for at least the last 10 years.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The law identifies under the Liquor Licensing Act that dry area declarations are made by way of regulation. We all know that regulations are promulgated by the government of the day and laid on the table of both houses of parliament and are subject to the usual disallowance procedure.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck: The Premier obviously did not know that when he put out his statement.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: That is not right. Under the guidelines, a local government council that believes that a dry area should be declared in its locality will make application to the government with a fairly comprehensive package which identifies what the problems might be that the council believes can be overcome by declaring a dry zone, the levels of consultation within the community, and what sorts of strategies are proposed to deal with underlying social causes for the problems to which the dry area declaration is intended to be directed.

In some instances there will be further examination of the consultation by the Liquor and Gaming Commissioner. The applications would normally be processed through the Attorney-General. In the case of the request for dry area declaration from the City of Adelaide (which I think was received only a few days ago), it has now been sent off to the Liquor and Gaming Commissioner for examination. The Liquor and Gaming Commissioner examines the application and makes-

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Well, he will; I am telling you this. The Liquor and Gaming Commissioner, having examined the application, will then refer it to me, or to the Attorney-General, and then I will make an application by way of cabinet submission to the cabinet for approval to draft the regulation which will promulgate the dry area; and then it will go off for drafting. It will then come back as a formal regulation for promulgation by the Governor in Council after being finally approved by the cabinet.

With the consultation process, it is sometimes necessary to undertake further consultation. In many instances there has already been a significant level of consultation with local communities; and, in the case of some communities that have a crime prevention committee, councils use those committees to undertake the consultation process. In addition to that, views will be sought from the police, the Crime Prevention Unit, Youth Plus, and a whole range of groups within government and in the non-government sector; and my understanding is that a lot has already been done by the Adelaide City Council.

The Premier has indicated that, the council having made application for the dry area, we are processing it through the various steps that normally we would take but that, in the end, the dry area declaration will be facilitated. He has also indicated that the underlying social issues will have to be addressed by local government as well as by government, because that is part of the normal guidelines which we apply in relation to dry area declarations. That is what will happen in this case, and it will be facilitated. At one stage the council was seeking to have a hearing before the Liquor and Gaming Commissioner or, in one case, I think the Licensing Court was mentioned. However, the council misunderstood where, ultimately, the declaration is made. There is no hearing before either the Commissioner or the Licensing Court, and in those circumstances, having been considered as a matter of administration by the Liquor and Gaming Commissioner, it will come to me and then it will be appropriately processed through the cabinet at that point.

In terms of issues of funding, I will take those questions on notice and bring back a reply. In respect of the publicity given to some advice by Mr Elliott Johnston, I do not have that in front of me but I will give a considered response to that. I remember that at the time I looked at it I made a statement that what he was advising (as it was reported) did not make sense. I have seen nothing which suggests that the statement I made was incorrect.

Mr Johnston gave advice, as I understand it from the media reports. I did not agree with that advice and the way in which it was reported just did not make sense, and that is what I said. I do not have any problem with saying that sort of thing but, in any event, that was a matter for the council because, as I recollect, it went to the processes of council not to the processes of government. That is as far as I can take the answers to the longest of the questions at present. I will take the remainder on notice and bring back considered replies.