Page 4760 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 28 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A series of amendments are to be moved and it seems to me that it would not have been difficult also to deal with this retrospectivity matter in this Bill since attention was drawn to it by the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation. It is an important issue. I think that I should make my stand in relation to this Bill and others on both the issue of retrospectivity and the issue of onus of proof or reverse onus of proof, neither of which is acceptable to me. I do not perceive them as being appropriate in legislation.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (4.21), in reply: Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the support of the Assembly for this Bill. I must say, in good faith, that the origins of some of these amendments go back to the mists of time. When I look through the GALA file I find that they relate to suggestions that have been put forward over time by the community, by the industry and by the legal profession. The more recent amendments reflect some of the recommendations of the Social Policy Committee in its report on behaviour, and some of the more recent amendments, as my colleague Mr Humphries observed, also interrelate with the report of the National Committee on Violence.
The Liquor Act has not been systematically reviewed since it was introduced in 1975. In a number of respects it operates inadequately and it fails to meet industry standards and community expectations. The proposed amendments will address many of the shortcomings in the Act and allay many industry and community concerns. The most significant amendments include tightening controls on under-age drinking by requiring licensees to take reasonable measures to determine whether customers are over the age of 18; more stringent criteria will be used to determine the suitability of an applicant for a liquor licence or permit; and the extension of powers available to the licensing authority to enforce the Act, including new powers to issue directions, the power to suspend a licence and extended powers to cancel a licence. As well, I will be moving amendments that will produce a power to issue a reprimand and will close the loophole that enabled companies to avoid provisions of the Act by hiding behind the corporate veil.
Just flicking through my file papers, I see that Ms Follett, who was then the Minister responsible, as Chief Minister, indicated to GALA in September last year, in reply to a letter in July from Mr Higgins, that this provision to do away with the corporate veil would be in those shortly to be considered amendments of the Australian Labor Party. I do not wish to sound churlish, but I trust all members of the house will acknowledge that the Bills on the floor of the house rarely reflect the Bills in progress and the amount of work before the Law Office or the Legislative Counsel. There would be few law officers or legislative counsel officers in Australia who have ever gone through such an event as having self-government
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .