Page 5338 - Week 12 - Thursday, 28 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
provisions of the Liquor Act and showing blatant disregard for or continuing to breach other laws of the territory, why should that not be a relevant consideration? I would have thought the community would want to know that liquor licensees are people who abide by the law and have regard to the law and do not simply think they can get away with other provisions as long as they abide by the obligations of the Liquor Act.
This is about whether we have people of good standing in the liquor industry or not, and breaches of other territory acts should be grounds for the commissioner to consider whether or not a licensee should continue to be a licensee or indeed become a licensee. And I think it is a reasonable position to put.
You can trivialise it by pointing to some acts like the Food Act and others but the fact is that this applies to all acts. It applies to all acts in the territory. There is a range of quite serious provisions that Mr Rattenbury and Mrs Dunne are saying can be breached and penalties can be brought against those people and then it is not a relevant consideration.
Mrs Dunne: But should they lose their licence?
MR CORBELL: That is not a view that the government supports and the government cannot support this amendment.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.13): The Greens are not seeking to trivialise any of these acts but rather illustrate the point. I think it is an interesting discussion. I think a more relevant one perhaps than the Food Act is the Smoking (Prohibition in Enclosed Public Places) Act which, you might argue, directly comes to the issue of the conduct of licensed premises.
The way I have thought about this is that under that act there is a series of penalties, including criminal sanctions, for breaches of that act, particularly where someone is repeatedly breaching that act, which you may say goes to their fitness to hold a liquor licence. But I am of the view that there are sufficient penalties under that act and if liquor licence holders continue to breach that act the level of penalties will reach a point where their ability to run the business will not be sustainable anyway. But I think that the two things are quite separate.
Mr Corbell just said, “We want to know that people who are holding a liquor licence are not breaching other laws.” I cannot think of another circumstance—and I stand to be corrected—where, because of your profession, breaching some other law prohibits you continuing in that profession. There probably are some examples, as I am thinking through it, standing on my feet.
But there are requirements under the Liquor Act to hold a liquor licence. If you breach those, you will lose your licence. There are requirements under other acts and if you breach those you will be penalised for that purpose. And that is the basis on which we have agreed to support Mrs Dunne’s amendment.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video