Page 1753 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
authorised people to evict or refuse entry to someone who is intoxicated, violent, quarrelsome or disorderly. This amendment clarifies the existing common-law right of eviction or refusal of entry in certain circumstances where it is likely to be necessary to ensure the safety and comfort of other patrons and the staff of the venue.
I note that the opposition has said it will oppose the compliance testing matters when we get to the detail stage, and I thought it would be helpful to talk to the points in relation to that at this stage as well. Clause 82 of the bill is an important part of the reforms in this legislation. Controlled purchasing operations are an effective tool which can be used by regulators to help ensure compliance in industries where the sale and supply of products to minors is illegal.
A controlled purchase operation scheme is included in the ACT’s Liquor Act to test compliance by licensees with prohibitions against the sale of alcohol to young people. First and foremost, the design of the compliance testing legislation makes the welfare of young people the first consideration. Any operation must be approved by a minister, and the legislation requires that at each step in approving and conducting the operation the welfare and safety of young people must be the paramount consideration. The informed consent of parents is required.
The procedures for any compliance operation are a disallowable instrument, which means precautionary measures will be subject to scrutiny. The accountability and the strict requirements for a controlled operation mean that any operation will be conducted in a way that is safe for the young people who assist. The government will be working with the regulator, Access Canberra, to ensure that robust policies and guidelines are in place for the effective use of controlled purchase operations, just as they are for the existing tobacco compliance testing scheme under the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1927. These policies will, of course, as required by the legislation, put the welfare of minors assisting a compliance test first and foremost.
Mr Hanson referred to the question of entrapment, and the question is sometimes raised about whether the use of controlled purchase operations may amount to entrapment. “Entrapment” is defined as the act of a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offence which the person would not have or was unlikely to have otherwise committed. A controlled purchase operation does not amount to entrapment where the conduct involved in attempting to purchase the regulated goods does not amount to an improper inducement and the manner in which the operation is undertaken is, in all the circumstances, fair.
While entrapment is not an automatic defence in Australian law, as with controlled purchase operations in other compliance testing settings, the onus will be on the regulator, Access Canberra, to ensure that evidence gathered of any offence is admissible. The courts remain the primary vehicle for ensuring the proper conduct of law enforcement officers involved in varying undercover activities. There is no fundamental reason why the compliance testing scheme proposed in the Liquor Amendment Bill 2017 would present any legal difficulty in this regard. In summary, the liquor reform package supports small businesses. It reduces red tape for everyone in the industry and it makes no compromise on public safety. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video