Page 4746 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 28 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
long time to make its way through the house. On other occasions, and this is one of them, a Bill is introduced and passed within a week. This Bill was introduced a week ago and is to be passed today.
This is of particular concern when the Bill makes changes to the criminal law and makes changes, in effect, to the rights and duties of Canberra citizens. When this Bill was tabled I undertook what is the normal practice on this side of the house, in government and in opposition. I understand from those of my colleagues who were here in government that they followed this practice, and we have retained it while in opposition. We try to consult with interested members of the community, show them the Bill - not just some statement of intent, but the Bill - and get feedback. That is the way the Labor Party approaches the consultation process and ensures that the views that the Opposition are putting in this place are representative of the views of the community. But unfortunately we find ourselves voting on this Bill a bare week or so from the date it was introduced. I think that is a legitimate area of criticism on a Bill of this nature that is very detailed and that substantially affects the rights and duties of Canberra citizens.
Mr Speaker, the thrust of the Bill, as outlined by the Attorney-General, is one to which we cannot object. It tidies up an Act that has been in place for some years now. This is the ordinary process with legislation. As the years go by procedures established in a Bill become outdated. There were some concerns, I understand, that the mechanism in the existing Liquor Act did not provide enough options for enforcing sanctions against licensees. I understand that the difficulty, in effect, was that when there have been complaints against licensees, where perhaps licensees have been convicted on one or a number of occasions of providing liquor to under-age persons in particular, the sanctions available to the licensing authority were, basically, to do nothing or to chop their heads off. The sanctions were either to cancel the licence or, in effect, to do nothing - perhaps issue a warning.
A view had been around through the industry for some time that it would be better to introduce a more flexible scheme for suspensions of licence for varying periods so that the licensing authority could very effectively police convictions. The view was put about through the industry - I understand, with the support of the industry - that this would be a good thing. If the keeper of premises were convicted, for example, again, of under-age drinking, the licence could be suspended for a period for a first offence or second offence, and a more severe penalty could be applied perhaps if there were further offences. We in general would support that approach.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .