15 September 2026
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:41): I rise to speak on behalf of the Greens on the Liquor Licensing (Royal Commission Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2026, and to indicate that the Greens will, of course, be supporting this legislation. As other speakers have identified, this bill progresses two prevention reforms from recommendations 128 and 129 of the Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence.
Through the Liquor Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2025, the Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs has progressed a number of important reforms: that the paramount object of Liquor Licencing Act of 1997 be to ensure that the sale and supply of liquor occurs in a manner that minimises the harm and potential for harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol; a minimum two-hour safety pause delay to prevent the rapid delivery of alcohol; and new restrictions on alcohol sale and delivery timelines.
These are welcome and necessary reforms. But I do want to draw the chamber's attention to how the government has chosen to respond to recommendation 128 in particular. The recommendation was that the object of the act be amended so that it refers to minimising the harm and potential for harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of liquor. The government's formal response to this recommendation is recorded as: accept. It states that the government accepts the intent of the recommendation and will subsequently implement it within the foundational response package, while noting that the implementation approach and time frame may differ from that recommended by the royal commission. That was the government's formal response last year.
The government has, however, chosen to enliven the recommendations by amending the long title and not the object of the act. In the other place, the minister, the Hon. Michael Brown, explained the government's reasoning in these terms, and I quote from his remarks:
The government has decided to implement that particular recommendation by changing the long title, because we feel that changing the long title will help to make harm minimisation a central tenet of the legislation...That will mean that it will be there to be drawn upon for all decisions that are made under the act by licensing authorities and that is the most appropriate and practical way to give effect to the royal commissioner's recommendation.
Well, while I welcome the change to the long title, if the government's own stated intent is to make harm minimisation a central tenet of the legislation, why not implement the royal commission recommendations in full. So the amendment that will I move today will seek to do that in line with the commitment that the Greens made as part of the election campaign.
A long title is an interpretive aid. It informs how a court or a decision-maker reads the act when there is ambiguity. It is not the same as the object of the act, which actively shapes and directs every decision made by licensing authorities under it. If harm minimisation is to be truly central, as we believe it should be—not just referenced but operative—then the Greens believe it must be reflected in the object provision itself, not tucked away in the long title alone. Indeed, we consider this to be to give true effect to the recommendation of the royal commission.
That is why I tabled the amendment in my name. It seeks to implement recommendation 128 in its entirety so that the object of the act itself takes into account the minimisation of harm and potential harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate use of liquor.
In the words of Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety, from a 2017 research paper on the links between alcohol consumption and domestic and sexual violence against women:
A strong and consistent relationship between alcohol use and violence against women has been clearly established in research conducted over the last three decades… Alcohol use is associated with both perpetration and victimisation for violence against women.
The prevention of domestic, family and sexual violence requires a multifaceted approach. The commission examined existing policies, legislation, administrative arrangements, system structures and funding levers within the South Australian context to deliver recommendations that would support generational change.
I urge the chamber to support the bill but also to support the Greens' amendment. I indicate, however, that should the Greens amendment fail, of course we will support this legislation's passage through the chamber. It is an important reform, and I congratulate the government for the leadership they are showing on this.
I might also just use this opportunity to respond to some of the remarks made by the Hon. Ms Game on behalf of the Family First party. I find it curious that a political party that claims to put families first would not support the recommendations of an independent royal commission that has sought to reduce the prevalence of domestic and family violence.
This has been a very comprehensive process conducted by an independent person, Natasha Stott Despoja, who is highly regarded in the community. They have made some very clear recommendations, yet we have a representative from a political party that says that it is about families working with the One Nation party to try and water down these recommendations for reasons that are not quite clear and have not been articulated.
It seems that they claim they have evidence that supports their assertions, yet we have the weight of evidence that has been presented through the royal commission process. It is a strange, unholy alliance between Family First and One Nation when it comes to watering down these important recommendations. I urge members to support the bill and to go one step further and to support the Greens' amendments, which I think strengthen it in line with the recommendations of the royal commission.