Page 5653 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The response of those at the meeting was one of derisive laughter—justifiably so for a minister who simply has no idea what the impact of this legislation will be, and I suspect a minister who does not get out much or know what is going on with liquor licensing across the ACT. And it does not stop here. The tangle of red tape that a small community group has to jump through to serve a glass of wine with some nibbles after a concert is almost exactly the same as for a large commercial organisation staging a major event. It starts to beg the question as to whether the new liquor licensing laws will require churches to have a permit if they have a communion service on Sunday. The reasons for opposition to these laws continue.
This ACT Labor government’s law takes a “bull in a china shop” approach to regulating the city’s hospitality industry. Most operators that I know work hard to train staff, promote and encourage responsible consumption of alcohol, develop a good working relationship with the police and the Office of Regulatory Services and provide a range of other services to ensure a safe, secure and enjoyable experience for their patrons. It would not make good business sense not to. Most operators have an excellent record of compliance, as well as a proactive approach to conducting their business. As such, they have a record of few, if any, situations in which antisocial behaviour has resulted in the need for police intervention. Yet these laws fail to give any recognition to that record of those liquor licensees across the town. They simply slap on substantially higher fees, along with reams of paper and extra red tape, and operators are told to like it or lump it. With all of these issues at stake, is it any wonder that hospitality patrons too have joined with operators to express their outrage over these laws?
I seek leave to table a number of documents carrying the signatures of almost 600 patrons of the ACT hospitality industry.
Leave granted.
MRS DUNNE: I table the following paper:
Petition which does not conform with the standing orders—Proposed liquor licence fees (593 signatures).
These patrons are calling on this Assembly to disallow the proposed fee structure and:
… to genuinely consult with ACT liquor licensees on creating an equitable fees structure that accounts for a capacity to pay, impact on consumer costs, consumer choice and small business models, rather than the uncompetitive environment this proposed fees structure will lead to.
I support those signatories and, although this is an out-of-order petition, I encourage the minister to look at the sentiments expressed in the petition and respond to it in the normal way. I encourage him to do that because I think it adequately and fully sets out the concerns of not only the industry but the people who patronise the industry. Because of the importance of those concerns and the succinctness of their expression in the document that accompanied the information that was provided to people who signed the petition, I will read it into Hansard. It starts:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video