Page 3265 - Week 11 - Thursday, 12 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To compound the absurdity of this pseudo-crisis that we are detecting, the solution proposed is an inquiry under the Inquiries Act which is, as we pointed out during debate, for all intents and purposes, a mini-royal commission. Is this the answer to the economic problems in the Territory - a Bernard Collaery, lawyer led recovery? We are going to throw thousands of dollars at a panel of lawyers and pseudo-royal commissioners to cogitate on liquor licensing matters. This is bizarre.
Last year the Alliance Government introduced, with the full support of the Opposition, what they described and what we acknowledged was a significant package of reforms to the liquor laws. There were real problems with the liquor laws - problems identified by Mr Collaery as Attorney and problems stressed by Mr Stefaniak as a person who, as we know, takes a real interest in this subject.
There were problems like an obvious gap in the laws that prevented commercial leaseholders who have properties adjoining licensed premises from objecting. We must remember that in the ACT, contrary to the position in most States, a lot of licensed premises are in commercial areas. So, they do not adjoin residential properties; that is by far the exception rather than the rule. But the liquor licensing Act at the time did not provide any right of objection from a non-resident lessee. You had to be a resident to complain, and that was pointed out as a problem. That was resolved.
I ask my officers, "Have there been complaints following taking up those reforms?". I am told that, in fact, there have not. There is only one matter now before the Liquor Licensing Board and that involves residential lessees near the Kingston Hotel. That matter is proceeding through the appropriate mechanisms.
I would have thought that it was sensible, given what was described by Mr Collaery as a milestone reform of the licensing laws in only November of last year, to let those reforms operate, and to let the Licensing Board see how those laws operate and to see whether there are problems. But, no, Dr Kinloch tells us that there is a crisis. Dr Kinloch wants us to throw thousands upon thousands of dollars at an urgent inquiry. This matter is so urgent that it cannot be dealt with by the Assembly's committees; we have to set up an independent inquiry and throw thousands of dollars at lawyers to solve this problem - a problem that the Alliance Government last year, with full support, had solved.
We had a significant reform; we had a milestone in reform, said Mr Collaery to this chamber and to the media. Now, a member of his party seems to think that the whole position is in disarray. We would share the implied suggestion from Dr Kinloch that his leader does not know what he is up to in most cases, but in this case we actually supported those proposals.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .