Restrictions on the sale of takeaway alcohol in Coober Pedy will be ongoing from 1 July 2024, following a decision made by the Liquor and Gambling Regulator. The impact of the (same) restrictions will be reviewed again in yet another 12 months, to determine their effectiveness.

The decision means that liquor licence holders will not be able to sell takeaway alcoholic beverages to the local community or tourists before midday, to deter sales from reaching the hands of residents from prescribed lands (APY Land and other remote communities), with sales of takeaway liquor limited to one purchase, per person, per day of the daily limits that apply.

Q: Why has the state government set Coober Pedy up with permanent services to cater to this expected influx. Curious?

This result from the Office of the Liquor Licensing Authority should be no surprise. 11 years of tokenism by the State Government with the local community again sentenced to another 12 months of restrictions, violence, crime and antisocial behaviour.

Director of Regulation and Advice with Consumer and Business Services, Fraser Stroud, said feedback from local business groups, community groups, authorities, and local health services was considered and taken into account in making the decision.

“There were a broad range of views expressed and this was not an easy decision to make,” he said. “I appreciate that there are many in the community who feel they are being unfairly penalised by these limits, but at the same time, the evidence in favour of the restrictions continuing is hard to ignore.

“Frontline health and support services that provide domestic, family violence and mental health support in Coober Pedy – reported the later start to takeaway liquor sales was making a significant difference, with a number of clients able to more effectively engage in DV counselling services.

“These organisations also advise they have been able to provide more financial counselling and gambling help services as a result, and they had also observed a greater willingness of clients to engage with services before midday, helping people access the mental health services they needed.

“This indicates that services can provide more help to people at risk of alcohol-related harm, thanks to a later start in the sale of takeaway liquor.”

Mr Stroud said he would be consulting with licensees on an additional restriction, which would prevent them from selling takeaway liquor after 7pm. Licensees have until the end of July to provide their feedback on this proposed additional measure, and a decision will be made soon after,” he said.

Mr Stroud thanked all community members who participated in the consultation process. “Locals have been very keen to engage in this, and I appreciate there are some strongly held views,” he said.

“Consumer and Business Services will continue to closely monitor the impact these ongoing restrictions are having and will reassess whether they remain appropriate to continue in 12 months.”

Chairperson of the Coober Pedy Retail, Business and Tourism Association George Kountouris said, “The current opening hours of our 2 takeaway outlets do not restrict anti-social behaviour. The policing of the dry Zone is imperative in maintaining our welcoming nature.”

“We tax-paying businesses and their employees have become very reliant on Tourism.  We need to take drinking off the streets completely and have Government health agencies, positioned ‘near’ the APY Lands take a more active role in the problem. SAPOL at Coober Pedy cannot do everything.”

“Businesses in Coober Pedy have the right to trade without hindrance and loiter. The proposed closing time of 7 punishes both the businesses and the wider public. Not forgetting that businesses in Coober and the broader Far North have only seven months of reasonable trade in the year.”

“Everyone in outback, remote towns want and need a peaceful, free environment. Maybe the answer is a cash card. One cannot help but conclude that politics is more at play here than equal human rights. If you need to change the relevant Act, then change it!”

One local resident/ratepayer that divides time between Adelaide and Coober Pedy has the following to say.

“Obviously the welfare organisations are in favour of the restrictions being continued, however, their generalised comments I suspect could not be sustained if we asked for particulars. They are saying there is increased, mental health contact, domestic violence services, financial assistance etc. etc. That being the case you should be seeing an army of clients marching down Hutchinson Street towards the relevant services instead of congregating around the Chemist shop, Bus Station, Hotel, and bottle shops.”

“Alternatively the service providers would be picking up the malefactors from those locations and taking them to their offices for consultations etc. None of which appears to be happening.”

“I have been asked on occasions by residents to bring favourite beverages from Adelaide when I come up, as the inconvenience of having to go to the bottle shop every day and at unsuitable times is a draining annoyance for those who work, travel or operate a business.”

“I personally and for obvious reasons, never shop at the hotel or local bottle shops.

“I read from the Restriction Notice from the Consumer and Business Services that if you are from certain remote communities you are prohibited from buying takeaway alcohol. Yet that seems to be the problem. It seems that restrictions applied to help the minority are detrimental to the majority. However alcohol-related crimes and other violence including stabbings have increased despite the restrictions, therefore it can be said they are not working.”

“Licensees are being consulted regarding the possibility of liquor restrictions after 7pm. Be that as it may, the late morning sales are a ‘fait accompli and here to stay for 12 months. At the earliest opportunity, I would be asking our local police sergeant or their Superintendent what documentary information is to be compiled and recorded for the next submission in 12 months?”

“At a meeting with the Far North Superintendent about this very matter a few months ago, he assured us that the police would be disposing of alcohol being consumed in Dry Areas. Is there any evidence of that having taken place yet? If not why not?”

“I haven’t given much thought to the liquor restrictions as they have never bothered me personally, but from a community perspective Coober Pedy residents should not be treated any less than other State citizens as a matter of principle.”

Brett Smith local resident and President of the ItaloMiner’s Club in Coober Pedy attended the meeting with representatives from the Liquor Licensing Authority. Mr. Smith mentioned that the Italian Club, run by volunteers, had been the victim of around a dozen break-ins, where people were looking to steal alcohol during the night.

Mr. Smith asked the team for their KPI’s (Key Performance Indicators.) Ms Thomas stated that they would have a clearer view of their KPI’s at the end of the financial year. As that time has now arrived, Mr. Smith is asking again, if those KPI’s can be released to our community.

John Di Donna, a local resident, business operator, and participant in a Local Working Group that canvassed many people too shy to come forward, said, “YOUR LIQUOR RESTRICTIONS ACHIEVE NOTHING BUT DIVISION”.

In my opinion, the acting liquor commissioner, Fraser Stroud, is unrealistic if he thinks keeping the same restrictions for another twelve months will resolve the anti-social violence and other criminal activities, particularly during court sessions at Coober Pedy, that he failed to mention. 

In 2013 the South Australian State Government (in a BUDGET CUT) withdrew funding from the Court Circuits attending the APY Lands causing court attendees from the Lands to attend court in Coober Pedy more frequently, thus creating a new wave of crime to be dealt with at a later date!   At around the same time the Department of Corrections, based in Marla, near the Lands, was relocated to Coober Pedy to supervise parolees who live in the north of the state!  

Creating relief for a severely impacted community has not been considered by your department. Your department must exist for something else. It is extremely disappointing to see our state governed in such an oppressive and authoritarian manner, where community well-being and safety is merely lip service – a farce.

Q: What exactly does the Liquor Commissioner imagine the outcome of the new round of Liquor Restrictions to be in 12 months?

In my opinion, the A/licensing commissioner Fraser Stroud believes in Utopia, (a place that doesn’t exist.) The actions of continuing with the alcohol restrictions, knowing that the community clearly expressed that the restrictions DON’T work, attest to this fact. From 2013 to the present time, there was probably one year that worked, the rest is well-documented history. 

Q: Why didn’t Fraser Stroud contact the family of the deceased, who was fatally stabbed in front of the Opal Inn at approximately 6 pm after attending a court session, when his alcohol restrictions were in place? Q: Can you explain to them how the anti-social behaviour and related violence was not happening due to the alcohol restrictions being in place?

Stabbing is becoming the new norm with young people emulating their alcoholic role models. Q: Did Fraser Stroud contact the victim (a 14 year old boy) who was allegedly stabbed riding his push bike from school during the newly trialled liquor restrictions and advise him that he has extended the restrictions, and no more incidents will occur at any level?

Q: Did Fraser Stroud contact the business owners of the Post Office and explain that at approximately 3 pm a woman allegedly drove her vehicle into the post office while under the influence of alcohol, causing thousands of dollars’ worth of damage, and let the owners and the staff know that the alcohol restrictions are working?

Q: Will Fraser Stroud release his mobile phone number so the community can contact him directly to express their frustration and anger when they are humbugged for money and cigarettes and threatened to be stabbed while eating their dinner at local restaurants?

(Page 1 Coober Pedy Liquor Restriction Decision)

In particular, the District Council of Coober Pedy submitted that, while the trial appeared to have had a positive impact on the community, a longer trial was required to gather relevant data and other feedback about the effectiveness of the restrictions.

Response: WOW! What positive impact? Why aren’t their findings published? Considering the Council’s FIFO administrator is NOT a local in Coober Pedy, and the CEO position, for some time has been a revolving door affair.

The council received funding from the federal government almost three years ago for new CCTV cameras on Hutchison Street. However, nothing has been done to monitor all the antisocial and illegal activities. Therefore, public safety is a low priority for the current administrator and his offsiders.

(Page 3 Coober Pedy Liquor Restriction Decision)

Community Forum

We held a community forum on the evening of Monday 27 May 2024, which was attended by approximately 35 local residents; and met with other residents and business owners on Tuesday 28 May.

Response: Residents majorly acknowledged that the restrictions have had no positive impact on the town and that they are being penalised in circumstances where they have done nothing wrong “just because a minority of people are doing the wrong thing”. The restrictions on the daily quantities of liquor that can be purchased, impact their ability to buy alcohol when it is on special, or to purchase alcohol in larger quantities for events such as Christmas or birthday parties.

The growing crime including deaths and daily begging, pilfering, littering, loitering and threatening behaviour is alarming to the local community, especially living in a remote area with meager services provided by the State Government.

The residents also came up with practical recommendations and solutions that would reduce impact on the currently targetted community, which the department failed to take seriously.

• The basic card should be lobbied for and returned. Those receiving taxpayer’s money as in Centrelink payments should NOT be allowed to use it for non-essential items, eg. alcohol, gambling, or drugs? The funding should be used for essentials such as food, medications, clothing, etc…
• The introduction of the wet area where all government support services can monitor and implement responsible drinking in one area.
• Why not have a comprehensive database of anti-sociable, violent offenders and limit those with the same restrictions as mine site employees do?
• Why not investigate the possibility of alcohol sales in the APY lands or near the lands with the same restrictions as mine site employees? This would limit remote communities from travelling to Coober Pedy looking for liquor outlets. They then can return home sober and sleep in their beds and won’t need to rely on government-funded agencies outside of their communities or towns.
• Why not implement the same alcohol restriction in the WHOLE Adelaide area under the liquor licencing Act 1997 Section 43(2)(g) to combat the same ani-social violence, domestic violence, common assaults, serious criminal trespass–residence’ and serious assaults.

Implementing restrictions and regulations in Adelaide wouldn’t be a popular move with State elections imminent. So what makes you think that your narrow-minded solution should be imposed, and would work in country communities? Not enough votes to worry about perhaps? (Famous quote by a former Labor MP)

Why is the commissioner imposing harsh penalties on country communities and targeting law-abiding citizens?

(Page 3 Coober Pedy Liquor Restriction Decision)

A local ambulance officer, speaking in her ‘private’ capacity, said she had certainly seen an improvement since the restrictions were imposed and her workload [as an ambulance officer] had reduced, and assaults were not as frequent. She then expressed the view that it was easier to get shopping done in the morning without being intimidated.

Did anyone speak to the CEO of the Ambulance Service or to other Ambo’s battling the streets at night, or was your decision based on one person’s speaking in a semi-private capacity?

Our community is tired of hearing twisted truths based on the personal ideologies of government employees.

(Page 4 Coober Pedy Liquor Restriction Decision)

Sobering Up Unit

They reported that admission numbers to the SUU had not decreased and that intoxication levels remained very high. They attribute this to alcohol coming into the community from other sources and believe that alcohol is being brought into Coober Pedy from out of town and on-sold to transient people.

Response: Acting Commissioner Fraser Stroud’s judgment is to put further alcohol restrictions on the community. Q: How did Mr. Stroud and his team conclude, that beating up on innocent people, would stop black market alcohol from being brought into Coober Pedy and sold off.

(Page 5 Coober Pedy Liquor Restriction Decision)

Licensees of the Opal Inn and Cellarbrations

Staff of the Opal Inn felt that while it was quieter in the mornings, the midday opening hours had just moved the issues to later in the day, rather than resolving them. The licensee submitted that the trial hasn’t been successful in reducing harm to the community and referred to the black market in liquor, break ins on premises and assaults on staff

Response: It’s not ROCKET SCIENCE!! Of course, it will be quiet in the morning. There is no reason to loiter around the bottle shop or any other venues when they are closed for business.

(Page 5 Coober Pedy Liquor Restriction Decision)

South Australia Police

Local police reported that midday opening hours have provided a 2-hour window in the mornings for police to attend to other policing work rather than having to respond to alcohol-related taskings as was previously the case.

Response: If the Police station was at its full capacity with staffing, [they are short of ten officers], it wouldn’t be an issue with policing the community.  That is the State’s responsibility! The afternoon opening hours made policing slightly better for them, by moving the problem to the afternoon and night.

(Page 6 Coober Pedy Liquor Restriction Decision)

Common assaults’, ‘serious criminal trespass – residence’ and ‘serious assaults not resulting in injury’ remained about the same. 

Police failed to mention serious assault causing death. (Fatal stabbing in the main street).

(Page 8 Coober Pedy Liquor Restriction Decision)

I also take into account that the quieter mornings have allowed police to focus on other policing work than responding to alcohol related taskings which has other positive flow-on effects for the community..

Response: Surely the police are using the quieter mornings to focus on finding the culprits that have caused serious criminal trespass, serious assaults and other criminal activities throughout the night?  They are not utilising their 2 hours in the morning to wash their police vehicles.

We believe that the CBS officers have limited understanding of the daily reality of living in a war zone, and have formed their decision with NO real-life experience, and potentially by cherry-picking the departmental reports.  In our view the flow-on effect will see alcohol sales flourish, people remain drunk but continue to stimulate the economy using their welfare money, with public monies flowing into the welfare departments, thus creating employment. Otherwise, why would these departments be established in a town, nowhere near the affected communities?

(Page 8 Coober Pedy Liquor Restriction Decision)

In considering the impact on tourism, I take into account that alcohol transactions have not decreased, but rather appear to have increased during the tourist season at the standalone packaged liquor store, so to that extent, there is little evidence (other than anecdotal) to suggest that tourists are being negatively impacted by the restrictions.

I suggest you leave your contact details for the tourists, and you can get direct feedback from the many disgruntled travellers that we encounter.

(Page 8 Coober Pedy Liquor Restriction Decision)

I accept that liquor restrictions result in inconvenience to all who choose to purchase takeaway liquor and that some pre-planning is involved for special events and parties, however, I consider that the inconvenience is not unreasonable or disproportionate to the harm-minimization objectives which the liquor restrictions seek to achieve and that customers can still purchase quantities of alcohol during reasonable business hours.

I consider the conclusion is most likely unlawful as it targets law-abiding citizens and their civil and constitutional rights when 98 percent are law-abiding and are now restricted. We believe this to be also discriminating.  One set of rules for landowners and mining companies and penalise everyone else.

QUESTION – The Liquor Licensing Act 1997

The object of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 is to regulate and control the promotion, sale, supply and consumption of liquor -(a) 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 liquor.

The Act defines that ‘harm’, caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of liquor includes –

(a) the risk of harm to children, vulnerable people and communities (whether to a community as a whole or a group within a community); and

(b) the adverse economic, social and cultural effects on communities (whether on a community as a whole or a group within a community); and

(c) the adverse effects on a person’s health; and

(d) alcohol abuse or misuse; and

(e) domestic violence or anti-social behaviour, including causing personal injury and property damage.

Q: Where in the Act does it show that law-abiding citizens are to be restricted on the purchase of alcohol?

Q: Where does the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 show the restrictions on the sale of alcohol to tourists that are not subject to any court order?

The commissioner has not listened to the local community. His decision was based only on the police, Council and Umoona Health.

The restrictions are based on antisocial people offending; therefore, they should not affect the 93 per cent of people doing the right thing. 

The object of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 is to regulate and control the promotion, sale, supply and consumption of liquor –

(a) 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 liquor.  

The Act defines that ‘harm’, caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of liquor includes –

(a) the risk of harm to children, vulnerable people and communities (whether to a community as a whole or a group within a community); and

(b) the adverse economic, social and cultural effects on communities (whether on a community as a whole or a group within a community); and

(c) the adverse effects on a person’s health; and

(d) alcohol abuse or misuse; and

(e) domestic violence or anti-social behaviour, including causing personal injury and property damage. 

I do not fit into any of the categories under the Liquor Licensing Act