Page 2199 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 4 August 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is the purpose of the change. It would be a backward step to delay its introduction and passage today because it is a reform that has been strongly supported by all stakeholders and is a loophole that needs to be closed. The government will not be supporting this referral to committee this morning.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.47): I will also not be supporting the referral to committee today, and I will go through a couple of the reasons for that. The bill makes relatively minor amendments to the ACT’s Liquor Act. In fact, most of the amendments implement recommendations from the two-year review of the 2010 Liquor Act provided to the government in 2014.
The first amendment, which Mr Hanson spoke about in his remarks, expands the role of the Liquor Advisory Board. The review found there was a lack of clarity around the role of the Liquor Advisory Board which compromised its operational functionality. The bill reforms the Liquor Advisory Board by allowing for the appointment of several new members: the Director-General of the Justice and Community Safety Directorate, the Victims of Crime Commissioner, a member to represent young people, a member to represent off-licensees, a member with knowledge or expertise in the area of health and the effects of alcohol, and a member to represent the community.
This broader membership is to be accompanied by a new board function by which it can advise the Attorney-General on measures to support harm minimisation and community safety principles. I think this is a good change. Previously the board’s role was focused on operational matters only. The board will be a good source of policy and legislative advice on achieving the important goals of harm minimisation and community safety.
I note that Mr Hanson was particularly concerned about whether the chair of the board should be somebody other than the JACS director-general. I think you could mount a pretty good argument either way. The advantages to having the director-general or somebody from JACS playing that role carries certain positives; having an independent person carries certain positives. For my mind, the real value is the broadening of the membership of this board and bringing in people such as the Victims of Crime Commissioner. It is fair to say that none of these people are shrinking violets; people like the Victims of Crime Commissioner will be very forthright in putting their views, and I do not think that particularly sways the argument either way about who needs to be the chair of the board.
I am happy to proceed on the basis that has been proposed. I think the real leap forward here and the important issue is the broadening of the membership of the advisory board to bring in a range of other stakeholders who have knowledge in this space of alcohol consumption and the alcohol industry. Traditionally, this board has been made up essentially of industry players, so it is a very positive development to have this broadened membership.
The bill also addresses the issue of secondary supply—that is, the supply of people under the age of 18 by adults. This is an area where Mr Hanson made some extensive comments today. The bill makes it an offence for a person to supply liquor to a child or young person at a private place unless the person is the parent or guardian of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video