Go to top of page

2016 independent liquor law review

Background information

Former Supreme Court Justice the Honourable Timothy Anderson QC was appointed to conduct an independent review into South Australia’s liquor licensing laws. The public was invited to make submissions to a liquor licensing discussion paper that looked at current laws and industry framework.

Mr Anderson’s report was released on 6 July 2016, following extensive consultation with the liquor and hospitality industry, local government another interested groups. 

Prior to the introduction of the new Bill in March 2017, community and stakeholders were consulted on proposed changes arising from the review conducted by Mr Anderson.

Public comment closed on proposed liquor law changes

Public comment was sought on changes to the state’s liquor licensing laws, in response to a review of the licensing regime by former Supreme Court Justice Tim Anderson.

In addition to amendments to the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, the comment was sought on draft Community Impact Assessment Guidelines which must be applied by the licensing authority when considering certain high risk licence applications.

Consultation closed on 6 January 2017. 

Response to the Review of the South Australian Liquor Licensing Act 1997

The response to the review of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 by former Supreme Court Judge Tim Anderson was released in September 2016.

The vast majority of Mr Anderson's recommendations have been accepted in full, some have been accepted in principle or in part, and eight have not been accepted.

Liquor licensing discussion paper submissions

On 2 October 2015 a full review of South Australia’s liquor licensing laws was announced, and a discussion paper was released.

The public was invited to make submissions about reforming the Liquor Licensing Act 1997.

Submissions closed on 29 January 2016.  However, some respondents were granted an extension until 5 February 2016 to allow for the collation and inclusion of critical research data in their submissions.

Below are the submissions received from respondents who did not object to the publication of their submission. Personal information and references to third parties in some of the submissions have not been published. Submissions marked as “confidential” have not been published.

More information