Page 1747 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
At 6 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
MADAM SPEAKER: Members, before I put the last question, it has come to my attention that there has been a clerical error and clause 45 has been omitted.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Liquor Amendment Bill 2017
Debate resumed from 23 March 2017 on motion by Mr Ramsay:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (6.02): I rise to indicate that the Canberra Liberals will be supporting this bill, with a notable exception relating to the compliance testing regime. The bill, as members from the last Assembly would recall, follows a failed attempt by the government to force a series of unpopular changes onto the community and industry. In fact, those concerns were so extensive that Labor took them off the table. I would hope that was due to the backlash from the public and professionals all across town. However, the timing does give rise to the thought that it was merely a tactical withdrawal because of the election. I hope that we do not see a number of those measures that were proposed just before the election coming back.
The white paper that was released introduced massive licensing fee increases and very strict closing time obligations. It was a real Canberra killer, as it was described. It gave rise to groups such as the Keep Canberra Open group, which many of you would recall, and the rallying cry, “Andrew Barr, you’ve gone too far.” Members will remember the origins of this debate. I am happy to note that the most problematic elements of the proposal have not been pursued and the current bill does not contain the lockout-by-stealth clauses or the more punitive liquor fees that were being proposed. That is why we will support this revised option, but there is still that one element that we have concerns with.
There are a number of remaining concerns about the bill that have been raised with us by industry. I think they have some very legitimate concerns. We will be watching and monitoring those areas closely to make sure that the assurances that we have received in briefings from the government actually hold true. We reserve the right to revisit any of those areas if we see that the application on the ground does not meet the assurances that we have received.
The first relates to security cameras—the new section 7A. The bill introduces a requirement for tighter coverage of security cameras, including continuous recording, the frame rate and requiring that it be of adequate quality to enable the identification of a person. Some sections of industry have raised their concerns with us that this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video