Page 5659 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is actually the underlying premise of a carbon tax. It is the same thing. It is actually about changing behaviour. And there are costs attached to that because you cannot just wish for people to change their behaviour. There is a time and a place to send an economic signal. Again, it is fairly basic economic theory and I would have thought it was something the Liberal Party clearly understood. At the end of the day, that is what we are doing here. We are seeking to provide an economic signal.
The review we are proposing requires that the government actually monitor what that impact is so that if it does produce unintended consequences we can come back and change it. But we cannot do nothing. We have to take a step here and this fee structure seeks to set out a set of steps. This Assembly must monitor those and, if necessary, come back and amend them.
The second part of our amendments is an evaluation of the impact of continuing to use the $100,000 as the threshold test for annual liquor purchases. I think this is quite important because I know that it has not been reviewed for at least 10 years. It seems to be a threshold that is probably out of date, certainly one that needs to be given further consideration. It does not strike me as a very practical step at this point in time.
We would also like to see an analysis of expanding the 2010 fee determination to take account of the full list of seven factors listed in section 229(2)(b) of the act. The motion from Mrs Dunne calls for various factors to be taken account of in a revised fee determination, but the fact is that these are already set out in the legislation at section 229. And for this reason we have, through our amendments, reverted to referring back to the legislation rather than setting them all out again. Those seven factors listed in the legislation were voted on and passed by the Assembly and, we believe, should form the basis for assessing risk.
The only factor that Mrs Dunne lists which is not captured by the legislation is location, which is her 2(a)(iii). While there will be some venues not in Civic that have had good compliance histories and do not experience alcohol-related violence—the suggestion is that basically the suburban pubs are not the source of the problem and all the trouble really is in Civic—we believe the existing risk factor of compliance history covers this situation most appropriately.
They are the amendments that we have circulated. We think that they provide a constructive way forward. We commend the amendments to the Assembly. I seek leave to move the amendments circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR RATTENBURY: I move:
(1) In paragraph (1), omit “disallowed”, substitute “reviewed”.
(2) Omit paragraph (2), substitute:
“(2) that the review be presented to the Assembly no later than 1 October 2011 and include:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video