Page 4100 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
drunk very quickly. Another example is regulation 28(e), which prohibits supplying liquor free of charge. It only makes sense that, if you are to prohibit irresponsible drink promotions, you also need to stop people simply giving away drinks for free. Clearly, that is irresponsible behaviour.
The Greens are committed to evidence-based policies in all areas of government, and this is especially the case with the liquor reforms today. The vast majority of today’s reforms are backed by evidence. In this context of evidence, however, there has been quite a lot of discussion about lockouts and whether or not they will help to reduce alcohol-related violence. There has also been confusion about whether or not lockouts were included in this set of reforms. With the assistance of the attorney and his department, my office has been able to pinpoint the lockout issue to one specific section of the bill. Clause 31(2)(b) states that the Commissioner for Fair Trading may impose a licence condition, and one of the examples given, example 5, states:
… that the licensee must not allow people to enter the licensed premises after a stated time—
otherwise known as a lockout. I would like to put on the record the Greens’ mistrust in the ability of lockouts to reduce alcohol-related violence unless combined with large scale increases in late night police and late night transport options. We believe this is what the available evidence indicates. I would like to encourage the commissioner and the attorney to have a public debate before considering using the power to impose a lockout. I think I am backed in this call by the government’s own final report into the Liquor Act, which says at page 67:
It is recommended that the Territory should await the outcomes of the evaluation of lockouts commissioned by COAG in response to the Ministerial Council on Drugs Strategy report which is expected to report mid 2009.
When my office last checked with the attorney’s office earlier this year, that research cited had not been finalised. We are left with available evidence suggesting that lockouts do not reduce violence until such time as there are large numbers of police and late night transport options. I would like to ask for a commitment from the attorney that the lockout provisions will only be used once the evidence justifies it. There is no legislative reform open to the Greens to guarantee the commissioner will not declare a lockout. Instead, we call on the attorney to follow the recommendations of the final report and refrain from lockouts for now.
That said, I would like to turn away from some of that micro detail now to look at some of the big ticket reforms proposed by this bill and the principles involved. There are three I would like to make comment on and explain why the Greens are prepared to agree in principle to these reforms. Firstly, the bill proposes to introduce a risk-based licensing system. This is a reform also proposed by the Greens, and we are pleased to see it reflected in the government’s legislation. We believe it plays a central part in the entire reform process.
Risk-based licensing sets annual fees based on the degree of risk that a venue has of contributing to alcohol-fuelled violence. The effect of such an approach is twofold. Firstly, there are financial incentives given to businesses to set up their venues in such a way as to reduce the risk of violence. Secondly, those businesses that decide to stay
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video