Page 4099 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
violence. We proposed a series of reforms and asked for the community to provide their feedback on our ideas. I am pleased to see that four out of seven of our proposals have been included in the government’s Liquor Bill.
Those proposals that are reflected in the bill today are, firstly, the introduction of a new regulatory framework based on risk; secondly, the mandating of staff training in responsible service of alcohol; thirdly, the restriction of irresponsible discounts and promotions of alcohol; and, finally, the improvement of the definition of “intoxicated”. These are four important evidence-based reforms that the Greens included in our discussion paper, and we are fully supportive of them in this bill.
Turning to the government bill itself, the objects and principles division is an important section that sets the overall direction for the rest of the Liquor Act. Clause 9 of the bill sets out the objects of the act, and I believe they are illustrative of the intent of the bill at its absolute core. There are two objects listed: firstly, to minimise the harm associated with the consumption of alcohol; and, secondly, to facilitate the responsible development of the liquor and hospitality industries in a way that takes account of community safety. What the Greens refer to as a safe and vibrant Canberra nightlife is equally encapsulated in those two objects.
Put simply, the bill aims to regulate pubs and clubs in such a way as to allow the industry to develop, but only in a responsible and safe way that allows all people to feel safe when they head out at night. There are numerous examples of where the bill puts that perspective into practice, too many to mention really in this in-principle debate. But I would like to discuss one detailed example to illustrate the balance that will be struck between the business interests of pubs and clubs and the interests of community safety.
The example is the restriction of irresponsible drink pricing and promotion. This was a reform the Greens proposed in our discussion paper, and it would be fair to say that there are people who like their cheap drinks and do not want them taken away. The Facebook page that sprung up, sponsored by a student at the ANU, certainly was evidence of that. However, there is a balance that needs to be struck between responsible service of alcohol and offering cheap drinks to entice patrons into your venue. I think this bill strikes this balance well on what is a challenging question.
Clause 136 creates the offence of conducting a prohibited promotional activity. Regulation 28 in the draft exposure regulations then goes on to prescribe certain activities for the purposes of clause 136. This is a vitally important part of the reforms, because it is one very practical way in which the policy intent reaches out into our pubs and clubs and regulates how drinks are served and how they are consumed. It is where the rubber meets the road or, as perhaps is the case today, where the legislation meets the liquor.
It sets out clearly what promotional activities are deemed inappropriate, and some examples demonstrate the point. Regulation 28(c) prohibits the selling of liquor at reduced prices for more than two hours continuously or between midnight and 5 am. This regulation caters for happy hours, but, at the same time, it prohibits pubs from offering discounted drinks for the entire evening. That is an appropriate balance between offering a good night out and just offering a really cheap way to get very
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video