Page 5337 - Week 12 - Thursday, 28 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
occupational discipline processes and measures and should not be linked, we believe, to the Liquor Act occupational discipline measures.
Put simply, we do not believe that a breach of food laws reflects on the ability to hold a liquor licence. Such a breach may have an effect on the ability to serve food but will not reflect on the licensee’s ability to safely and responsibly run a licensed venue. We think that there are sufficient measures contained within the Liquor Act to ensure that the licensee is running a safe and responsible venue.
There are sufficient other penalties under those other acts, with their enforcement capabilities, so that the overall safety of the public, which the minister was referring to, will be guarded by the various provisions that are set in place. And on that basis, we will be supporting Mrs Dunne’s amendment.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.09): I thank Mr Rattenbury and the Greens for their support on this matter. I did not hold out much hope of shifting the minister on this but I think that it is worth saying that you have to draw a line in the sand. If a licensee breaches the Food Act, the Road and Public Places Act, the Smoking (Prohibition in Enclosed Public Places) Act, the Work Safety Act or any of those acts, there are penalty provisions and they should be dealt with according to those.
But it seems that the government wants to have two bites at the cherry: “If we get you for doing something wrong under those, notwithstanding the penalties that you may have faced in that, we will get you again and we will take your licence away from you.” Your licence to run a licensed premises is about your capacity to run a safe and orderly public house, essentially.
As Mr Rattenbury said, there are a whole range of provisions in the legislation and penalties in the legislation and it is enough that they are all there. I think that this is a step too far and it will be making it very hard to do business in this town if these provisions are allowed to stand.
This, of course, is one of the issues. These are not consequential amendments in strict terms. These are new thought bubbles that the government has had on how to make life more difficult for people in business. And the Canberra Liberals are not about making life overly difficult for people in business. I thank Mr Rattenbury and the Greens for their support on this matter.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.11): The Canberra Liberals have just passed an amendment that makes life much more difficult for licensees in relation to the need to report every time they seize a fake ID. So let us just put that one to bed.
But in relation to this particular amendment, having a liquor licence involves a position of trust, a significant position of trust in the community, and the expectation of the community would be that not only are licensees abiding by their obligations under the Liquor Act and associated acts but are also abiding by the law more generally. If it is the case that liquor licensees are showing blatant disregard for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video