Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 12 Hansard (Tuesday, 26 October 2010) . . Page.. 5032 ..

MRS DUNNE: Attorney, what contingency plans does the government have to deal with any errors in the licensing renewal application process that may arise either from the licensees or through the bureaucracy so as not to jeopardise the continuity of businesses who currently hold licences?

MR CORBELL: My department has been working closely with the liquor licensees to advise them of the proposed changes that are outlined in the new liquor licensing legislation. In particular, my department has held a number of business information sessions and has written to all liquor licensees indicating to them that changes are occurring that will affect them in relation to their licence renewals or new applications.

Industry information sessions have been held. In addition, my department has been providing further advice to individual liquor licensees that are seeking further clarification and assistance. So I am confident that my department is doing everything it can to provide information to liquor licensees about their new obligations under the new legislation.

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, a supplementary question?

MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Smyth.

MR SMYTH: Attorney, how do you expect licensees to comply with the renewal requirements when you could not get your act together sufficiently to make the fee schedule and regulations available when the principal act was debated in the Assembly and when you continue to make changes to the legislation?

MR CORBELL: It is normal to make regulations and other determinations after the legislation is passed. That is the case on this occasion also.

MR SMYTH: A supplementary, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Smyth.

MR SMYTH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Attorney, how does your fee schedule compare with the New South Wales government’s fee schedule for liquor licensing charges?

MR CORBELL: It is difficult to compare New South Wales and the ACT because New South Wales does not have a risk-based licensing scheme. The more appropriate comparison is with fee structures in place in Queensland and Victoria, the other two jurisdictions that do have a risk-based licensing regime. Whilst there are some differences between the schemes and the different payments required in Victoria and Queensland compared to the ACT, the fees are broadly comparable with other risk-based licensing regimes. A comparison with New South Wales is not a fair or reasonable comparison because they do not have a risk-based licensing approach.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video