The Liquor Licensing Act 1988 (‘the Act’) came into operation on 1 February 1989 and effectively
remained unchanged for ten years; significant changes came into effect in 1998 and 2007.
The licensing authority was comprised of the Liquor Licensing Court (comprised a person eligible
to be appointed as a District Court Judge) and the Director (appointed under the Public Service
The licensing authority had absolute discretion under section 33 of the Act to grant or refuse
applications in the public interest where sections 5 and 38 were relevant when making a
Section 5 of the Act set out the objects as:
Under section 38 of the Act an applicant for the grant or removal of a Category A licence was
required to satisfy the licensing authority that ‘the licence is necessary in order to provide for the
reasonable requirements of the public for liquor and related services…’
All contested Category A applications for the grant or removal of a licence were to be
determined by the Court and decisions of the Director were subject to appeal to the Court. The
Court also dealt exclusively with disciplinary matters.
In 1998 the Liquor Licensing Amendment Act 1998 implemented a number of changes identified in
the June 1995 report of the Minister for Racing and Gaming on the review of the Liquor Licensing Act,
which in turn was premised on the April 1994 report of the review of the Liquor Licensing Act 1988.
Introduced reference to the minimisation of harm or ill‐health due to the use of liquor as a
primary object of the Act together with another primary object of ‘to regulate the sale, supply
and consumption of liquor’.
In carrying out its functions under the Act the licensing authority was required to have regard to
the primary objects of the Act and also to the existing objects.
All applications (including contested Category A licence applications) to be determined by the
Director unless the Director considered it was appropriate to refer the whole or part of the
matter for hearing and determination by the Court.
In 2007 the Liquor and Gaming Legislation Amendment Act 2006 implemented a number of
recommendations of the May 2005 report of the review of the Liquor Licensing Act 1988.
Changed the short title of the Act to the Liquor Control Act 1988.
The needs test as set out in section 38 of the Act was repealed and replaced with a requirement
that an applicant ‘must satisfy the licensing authority that granting the application is in the
The distinction of Category A and Category B licences was repealed; however, the licence
categories of hotel licence, liquor store licence, restaurant licence, club licence etc, remained
with the addition of a new small bar licence subcategory.
The objects of the Act were amended to read:
The Liquor Licensing Court was replaced by the Liquor Commission.
In the five years since the 2007 amendments came into operation, there has been much community
interest in the operation and effectiveness of various provisions of the Liquor Control Act 1988.
There has been particular interest from members of the Parliament, media, stakeholders in the
liquor and tourism industries and the health sector, in the application of the public interest test to
liquor licensing matters. In addition, Report No. 10 of the Education and Health Standing Committee
of the Legislative Assembly (Alcohol: Reducing the Harm and Curbing the Culture of Excess) was
tabled in the Parliament in June 2011.
Consequently, the Honourable Terry Waldron MLA, Minister for Racing and Gaming, appointed an
independent review Committee in December 2012, consisting of Mr John Atkins (Chairman), Mr Ian
Stanley and Ms Nicole Roocke. Mrs Donna Kennedy was appointed as the Executive Officer to the
The Committee sought input and comments from a wide cross‐section of the community on the
matters raised in the Terms of Reference. A request for public submissions was published in The
Weekend West and The Weekend Australian on 12 January 2013 and The Sunday Times on 13
In total 149 submissions were received (Refer Appendix 1) with 84 of those submissions being
published on the Department or Racing, Gaming and Liquor website with the consent of the
submitter. Where the submitter did not consent, the submission was not published.
In addition to the written submissions, follow‐up meetings were conducted with a number of parties
who had lodged a submission and other relevant stakeholders where the Committee identified a
need. Refer Appendix 2.
The Committee also met with regulators, police and industry stakeholders in Victoria, New South
Wales and New Zealand.
One of the Terms of Reference required the Committee to consider ‘the appropriateness of the
current restrictions allowing the consumption of liquor without a meal in restaurants’.
However, on 30 May 2013 the State Government announced changes to make it easier for
restaurants to serve liquor without a meal by amending the Liquor Control Regulations to reduce the
red tape, time and expense for restaurants applying for a liquor without a meal permit. The
provisions came into effect on 4 June 2013 with the government making a commitment the
provisions relating to restaurant licences would be amended as part of the review.
It was not possible for the Committee to specifically address every issue raised in the various
submissions received. Many suggestions can already be accommodated under the existing provisions
of the Act or were matters the Committee considered but did not support. The Committee would like
to express its appreciation and thank all those persons and organisations who lodged submissions or
gave their time to meet with the Committee.
Other matters the Committee should consider include:
“We have to accept ... that ‘alcohol is not an ordinary commodity’. If it is left to personal choice
as an entirely libertarian issue, we will run into problems. It is a drug. It is a drug of
dependence. It is a psychoactive drug. It happens to be legal. We do not want to make it illegal,
but it does require different handling from soap powder and other things that may be dealt
with otherwise by the free market.” Sir Ian Gilmore, UK Professor, July 2012
Liquor is a legal product which has played a central role in our culture for generations as both a social
activity and a religious ceremonial ritual. Attempts at prohibition have never been successful.
Notwithstanding this, there is a reason why we need to rigorously regulate the sale, supply and
consumption of liquor in Western Australia.
While moderate, unproblematic drinking is the norm in Western Australia, there is the potential for
liquor to be misused with serious negative consequences. While only a minority of the community
are drinking at excessive and immediately risky levels, the potential for harm resulting from lower
level alcohol consumption is becoming more and more evident.
There is a growing body of research and growing community awareness that it is not just episodic,
determined or binge drinking that is a problem, but also the risks associated with what is considered
by many to be normal drinking over long periods of time.
While attention is often given to the immediate harm caused by alcohol consumption there is
evidence which shows the long term impact across the community of drinking above the
recommended drinking guidelines is just as serious.
The impact of all forms of harmful drinking extends beyond the drinker and has a significant impact
on families and carers as well as health and law enforcement services, local government and
government agencies such as child protection, education, corrective services, mental health and
In this regard, the rates of alcohol‐related Emergency Department presentations have increased
significantly in the last five years and the number of alcohol‐related hospitalisations has increased by
over a third for residents in the Metropolitan area.1
The financial cost this imposes on the whole community through increases in taxes and charges and
regulation is very significant.
The Committee notes while the majority of liquor is supplied through packaged liquor outlets such as
liquor stores, hotels and taverns, the harm or inconvenience to society and individuals caused by
anti‐social behaviour tends to mostly become apparent in and around venues where liquor is
consumed such as hotels, bars and nightclubs and on the resulting impact on the health, Police and
community services systems. It is also important to consider the harm caused in domestic settings
such as alcohol‐related domestic violence.
The Committee considers both short term and long term alcohol‐related harm needs to be addressed
and believes this will require a degree of cultural change around our society’s habits and behaviours.
In this regard, while regulation is an important part of the solution, it cannot achieve cultural change
Community education is equally if not more important. Piecemeal measures are unlikely to be
Alcohol policy should be thought of as a long term integrated strategy with a comprehensive
approach incorporating regulation and education.
There is also considerable community concern about alcohol use by young people. The Committee
considers there is a particular need to take strong action to address the concerns and issues in
relation to juveniles and their access to liquor.
There is apparent community support for strategies such as secondary supply provisions and
controlled purchase operations as ways to reduce access to liquor by juveniles, which will ultimately
lead to a reduction in alcohol‐related harm amongst juveniles.
The Committee considers the right to sell and supply liquor comes with responsibilities. While
industry participants have expressed concerns regarding delays in process and procedure, it is
important to recognise from a community perspective the overall impact of liquor has far reaching
consequences. Pursuing efficiency in processes should not come to the detriment of preventing
negative health outcomes.
Notwithstanding this, the Committee acknowledges the liquor industry contributes significantly to
the State economy and provides broad employment opportunities. The economic viability of these
businesses is a legitimate factor to be taken into account when considering the nature and extent of
In making the recommendations contained in this report the Committee focussed on:
It is important to note in formulating the recommendations, the Committee took care to ensure the
amendments proposed in the recommendations will not impose an unreasonable compliance burden
on industry or administrative costs on government that are not balanced by the benefits they will
The Committee through its recommendations has endeavoured to construct a flexible framework
allowing regulation to evolve to meet changing community expectations.
The Committee considered ways to improve the licensing process with the aim of improving
efficiency, transparency and the administration of the Act while balancing the regulation of the sale
and supply of liquor and the potential impact on the community and public health outcomes. In this
regard, the Committee has made recommendations which should improve the transparency and
efficiency of the system at all levels.
The Committee considered the importance of opportunities for community members to express their
concerns regarding the potential impact of a proposed licensed premises and looked at ways to allow
for efficient opportunities for residents and community members to engage in the licensing process.
In this regard, the Committee has made recommendations which will improve and enhance
community engagement in the decision making process.
The Committee considered ways to reduce regulatory burden on industry participants where
possible and where appropriate. This includes measures to make processes more efficient and in
some cases, removing the need to apply for certain approvals.
The Committee considered the degree to which the provisions of the Act are enforced, the impact
that has on the operation of licensed premises and the compliance rate of licensees and if there was
an opportunity to strengthen or enhance the existing offence provisions in the Act.
The Committee acknowledges changing attitudes through government policy and regulation is
difficult but believes a positive change in Western Australian’s drinking culture is crucial to
addressing both short and long term alcohol‐related harm. This change in culture will be evidenced
by changing social norms around alcohol consumption, with individuals not drinking at risky levels
and consuming alcohol at more moderate levels; people being held responsible for their drinking
behaviour and a general intolerance of disruptive drinking. As mentioned previously, this will only be
possible as part of a comprehensive approach. In this regard, the Committee has made
recommendations which will create greater accountability and responsibility for both licensees and
consumers as well as providing an avenue to partially fund the significant education exercise needed
to address the cultural change required if we are to achieve an improved drinking culture.
As a result of the 2005 review of the Act and the adoption by the government of the majority of the
recommendations made in the Freemantle Report, significant amendments were made to the Act in
2006 and 2007. These include:
While the administrative changes of the last review have been largely positive the Committee
acknowledges there is room for improvement including removing or applying a light handed level of
administrative oversight where it is demonstrated through performance that risk to the community is
There is a clear desire for greater transparency in process in the operations of the Liquor Commission
and the licensing authority.
The Committee also notes with approval a number of the recommendations in this report are along
similar lines to those made in the Alcohol Action Plan published by the Australian National Council on
Drugs (Refer Appendix 3). The Alcohol Action Plan makes the following recommendations:
Unless indicated by quotation marks, the submissions have been summarised and referenced in the relevant section. It should be noted the Committee has not expressed a view on the submissions where they have been summarised and the submitters views have been referenced in full. The Committee’s views can be found under the conclusions of each section only.
Do not submit enquiries with this form.