Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 11 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 3415 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Mr Speaker, it is clear from the numbers that this Bill will not be going off to a committee. It surely deserves to go off to a committee so that it can be properly considered and in order that sensible recommendations can be prepared for later consideration by this Assembly.

MR SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation.

MR BERRY: That is better.

MR OSBORNE: I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MR OSBORNE: Mr Speaker, I am happy for it to go off to the Administration and Procedure Committee for a short period next year, so I will support Mr Berry's motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Debate resumed from 27 May 1998, on motion by Mr Osborne:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Community Safety and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) (6.27): I think I need to speak, Mr Speaker, simply to restore calm and order to this chamber. The Government will support the Liquor (Amendment) Bill which is before the house, on the basis that the Government believes that there is a very powerful case for ensuring that there is a much tighter arrangement in place for the sale of liquor, in particular to children under the age of 18. The Bill does have a problem which I propose to fix by way of an amendment, but the thrust of the Bill is supported by the Government.

I am advised that, in the absence of words expressly imposing vicarious liability, the provisions of an Act may possibly be interpreted to impose vicarious liability for an offence. However, it would be preferable to avoid the need to put this to the test. The likelihood of vicarious liability being negated by Mr Osborne's Bill is more probable as a result of the repeal of all of subsection 104B(3), as it could be argued that the legislature's intent, with the repeal of all the subsection, was to reverse the current position under the Act. Mr Speaker, that is in fact the argument in favour of the amendment, which I am not moving at this stage, so I will not proceed with those remarks. Seeing as no-one was listening anyway, apart from the Chief Minister, I might as well have read my shopping list.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .