Page 204 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
patrons. We know this because, like the Greens, the Canberra Liberals have been talking to the industry. We have had our roundtables and discussions and we know the kinds of reforms the industry is seeking. We know that industry is looking for a collaborative approach between industry and government, with shared responsibilities and initiatives leading to a common objective. We know that industry is looking for balance within that collaborative framework. It does not want a sledgehammer approach from government. What it does want are reforms that are workable and that yield that common objective.
It is interesting that the government’s proposed reforms and those put forward by the Greens in general terms are aligned. This has been commented on before. It augurs well for the time when we in this place will need to deliberate on and debate the government’s reform legislation.
That said, while we believe that this is an important motion brought here today, the Canberra Liberals do not support a number of elements of the motion, because they pre-empt that debate that will come forward when the reform legislation is presented. It should be sufficient that those elements of the motion are covered in the Greens’ consultation paper as they were covered in the government’s consultation.
I had proposed to move some amendments, but Mr Corbell has moved amendments which, if they succeed, will make it difficult for my amendments to be moved. I will speak on how the Canberra Liberals think that this motion should look, which is not substantially different but there is something that needs to be said.
I alluded to the fact that there are three policy-type initiatives that are addressed in Mr Rattenbury’s motion for which this is not really the place. In its policy paper, the government has already committed to evidence-based policies and risk-based licensing frameworks; the time to have the discussion about how those should look is when the government comes forward with its legislation for passage.
There is wide agreement in the Assembly—there is, in fact, a committee inquiry going on—in relation to the operation of live music venues. I have a problem with Mr Rattenbury’s paragraph (2)(b) because there seems to be some internal conflict. He is saying that we want vibrant live music venues—that they should be encouraged and not be deterred by risk-based licensing frameworks. I am not quite sure what he is trying to get at.
Then there is the issue of shared responsibility for public transport. Transport is a vital issue in relation to the nightlife in Canberra—the fact that there is very little transport to get people home. It is an important issue. But, as I have reservations about lockouts and curfews, I have some reservation about putting a whole lot of people who have drunk an awful lot of alcohol on the one bus to send them home. Mr Rattenbury, Mr Corbell and others have highlighted the problems about taking people out of a controlled environment and putting them on the street when they would really rather be inside drinking and that that leads to violence. If you put them on a bus when they would really rather be inside drinking, that may also lead to violence. This is an area I am particularly concerned about. We need to have a much more detailed discussion about how we manage public transport in the ACT and about transport options in relation to liquor licensing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video