Page 4757 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 28 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which licences should be issued. This new special licence category will provide greater flexibility for businesses and traders which aim to serve the tourist or the novelty client industry.
The penalties in the Liquor Act are obviously inadequate and are inconsistent with those applying to similar offences in other more recent Acts. This Bill updates the penalties in the Act. We all hope, I am sure, that we can consider the question of penalty units in the near future so as to avoid the problem of constantly updating provisions in Acts that provide for penalties.
The Bill also addresses the current unacceptable position where, if a licensee is late in making the due licence fee payment by 30 November, the licence is automatically cancelled. In excess of 30 licensees lost their liquor licence on 1 December last year and, as a result, the conduct of their businesses was severely disrupted.
The Bill removes the automatic licence cancellation for late licence fee payment and instead applies a 10 per cent late payment fee, with licence cancellation to follow where the fee has not been paid within 30 days.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I think that we have before us a highly commendable Bill which is worthy of bipartisan support. It addresses longstanding problems in the administration of the liquor industry and it will help to address the incidence of under-age drinking, place greater emphasis on the credentials and behaviour of liquor licensees and give greater flexibility in the administration of the Liquor Act to the licensing authority.
May I indicate, before I sit down, a couple of amendments that the Attorney-General intends to make to this Bill. I understand that they have been circulated. Clause 52 of the Bill makes a rather unfortunate reference, I would have thought, to publicans being able to refuse to serve people who, in their opinion, are suffering from the effects of mental illness. In line with the emphasis in recent times on removing forms of discrimination, it may be that that is an inappropriate provision. It has not been reflected in the existing Licensing Act of 1975. There is a provision in that Act, in section 88, for a licensee of premises to exclude or remove a person from the premises if the person is drunk, violent, quarrelsome or disorderly. We should have such a standing order in this place, Mr Speaker.
In those circumstances, that licensee had some discretion. I have grave reservations about extending that to people suffering from mental illness. Obviously, they ought not be served alcohol, but that ought not be a thing reflected in this Act. I think there are better ways of dealing with such a problem. I also note that the old Act referred to a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .