Page 4093 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
their own actions and behaviours. It talks about harm minimisation and public safety being the primary objectives of the new law. These are very laudable aims, but where is the objective to place some of the responsibility on the consumer who gets into a fight or acts irresponsibly?
Another reason it fails is because it takes a one-size-fits-all approach, which is typical of Mr Corbell’s approach to any policy. But in liquor and hospitality one size does not fit all. What works for Civic and Manuka nightclubs does not work for small suburban taverns and restaurants. What works for a Civic off-licence does not work for a Civic on-licence. A risk management plan and even an incident report may be fine for a Civic nightclub but may be not only onerous but impracticable for a small suburban restaurant or a small suburban tavern.
Another reason this bill fails is that it does not reward industry initiatives and improvement. Its approach is more one of penalty than reward. This bill fails because it failed to deliver all that was promised, or at least what we thought was worth considering. For example, the Australian Hotels Association, in the latest edition of its Active Hospitality magazine, tells its members that one of the reforms they can look forward to is:
A commitment that bars at the Australian National University and the University of Canberra are held to the same standards as other venues.
This commitment has not materialised. I understand another example is that the industry representatives called for the establishment of a liquor advisory board, and Mr Corbell was amenable to that proposal, but it did not materialise in this bill. It will materialise because of my work on the amendments that I will move later in the day.
Most importantly of all, Mr Corbell has failed to put before this Assembly, the industry and the people of Canberra the whole story about his liquor reforms. He has presented one chapter—the bill—but has failed to present chapters 2 and 3—the regulations and the all important schedule of fees. So the story remains incomplete. There are elements in the bill that underpin the regulations that are generic in nature, requiring clarification and regulation, but there is no finalised regulation to provide that clarification. There is not any idea of what is in Mr Corbell’s head in terms of the quantum and methodology of calculation of licence fees and permit fees, except that we know that they will be considerably higher.
We do not know how equitably the fees will be calculated across the industry. Will it be on the volume of liquor purchased or will it be based on the record of the venue? Will small suburban restaurants pay the same as busy city nightclubs? How will fees for off-licences be calculated? None of these questions has been answered, yet they are of critical importance to the industry. It could even go to the potential liability of many businesses and operators in this city. Does the government want to see businesses closed? Does the government want to reduce the choice of entertainment venues in our community? Does the government want to put even more pressure on the venues in our city’s hot spots? None of these questions have been answered yet.
All of this goes to the very heart of how the industry will review the fairness of the structure of the new laws, and this Attorney-General wants us to ignore those matters
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video