Page 205 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I note that Mr Corbell highlighted his experience of a licensed club in Newcastle. There are many licensed clubs in the ACT that also provide courtesy vehicles but at this stage there has not been a great deal of public discussion with venue operators of licensed premises, as opposed to licensed clubs, about the provision of those services. It is a very important issue which needs to be dealt with in a way which is much more sensitive than is proposed in this motion.
I had proposed that we would keep Mr Rattenbury’s paragraphs (1) and (2) but delete paragraphs (3)(a), (b) and (c) because they are specific policy issues, and then go on to the issues where there now seems to be substantial agreement. When I drafted my amendments this morning, there was not that level of agreement in relation to the tabling of an exposure draft in March and the conclusion of this legislation by the beginning of November 2010. I notice that the government has now come on board with this timetable. In the draft amendment that the minister circulated this morning, he was not on board. I am glad to see that he has now come on board.
The only other thing that I am interested in is that Mr Rattenbury wants to have consultation with the public and hospitality staff but seems not to think it is important to have discussions with the hospitality industry. That is remiss, but it becomes a moot point because Mr Corbell’s amendment takes out all reference to consultation.
That brings me back to the government’s position. The second point we need to focus on, which is sharply focused on in Mr Rattenbury’s motion, is the glacial pace at which the government in the ACT has moved on this. It is much like the government’s introduction of its on-the-spot fines for antisocial behaviour. This was a key element of making the city safer and more secure—particularly around hospitality areas—which is the primary target for reforms in the liquor licensing laws. After getting the legislation through the Assembly in April 2008, with the support of the Canberra Liberals, it has taken almost two years to get the system in place. It was only just before Christmas that a temporary, paper-based system came into operation.
Likewise, with the wider reform of the liquor industry, it was in February 2008, after he was put under pressure by the Canberra Liberals, that the Attorney-General asked his department to develop the terms of reference for review of the liquor licensing laws in the ACT. It was not until April 2008 that we saw those terms of reference. The closing date for submissions on that was 30 June 2008, two months after the release of the discussion paper. We saw 32 submissions lodged. But it was more than 15 months later, in September 2009, after the closing dates for submission, that the report finally was released. And here we are, five months further on again, and still not a page of legislation—not even an exposure draft—has seen the light of day. Indeed, the government’s proposed amendments to the motion we are debating today indicate that that exposure draft will not be available until March.
Although, in the amendments that he has moved, the minister has indicated some movement on the completion of this process, it is not as firm as was the original motion proposed by Mr Rattenbury—that this matter should be resolved in the Assembly by 1 November 2010. That would, of course, be quite a rigorous process, which we would all impose upon ourselves if we went down that path.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video