Page 4105 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
at Belconnen, I think it is called, who had some concerns. So my door has been open and I have sought always to engage with licensees.
In relation to the Restaurant and Catering Association—Mrs Dunne gratuitously threw that one in—the government wrote to the Restaurant and Catering Association, seeking their feedback. I had a meeting scheduled with representatives of the Restaurant and Catering Association. Regrettably, due to illness, they were unable to attend. They had to come from Sydney. They were unable to attend and regrettably they have not followed up with a further appointment. But the invitation has been there and my door has been open.
So the suggestion about failure to consult really does not have many legs to it—or, in fact, any legs to it. I think it would be fair to say, given the blanket media coverage that has existed over the last nine months in relation to this bill and what the government is proposing to do, I do not think the government can in any way be accused of trying to hide its intentions or hide that there is a process going on and that there were opportunities for people to comment on it.
In relation to the issue of the regulations, the regulations and the fees are a process that will be finalised once the bill comes into force and becomes an act of this place. That is the process, as members would understand, in relation to any regulation made under a piece of legislation. Of course the important thing to note, and what Mrs Dunne fails to note, is that these regulations are disallowable instruments and are subject to the scrutiny of this place.
The government is not in any way avoiding scrutiny on these issues because it is asking you to vote in principle on the bill before moving ahead with final determination of the regulations. The regulations are disallowable instruments. Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise whether or not they are adequate. And if they are not adequate, you will have the opportunity to take what action you believe is fit. So the government has been upfront and very honest about that.
Finally, one other point I did want to make in relation to some of the comments that were made earlier was about the provisions as they relate to universities. I do believe that there should be no difference between the provisions that govern the sale of alcohol and the operation of licensed venues on universities, as there is anywhere else in the city, particularly the relationship between licensed venues in Civic and the ANU. Given their proximity, there are no grounds for saying that the same rules should not apply in those licensed venues as apply in the rest of the city.
There are, however, a number of legislative barriers that do not mean the government can act unilaterally, nor should we act unilaterally, on that issue. In relation to the Australian National University, the operation of licensed venues at the Australian National University is subject to commonwealth statute. We are not able to legislate in relation to the Australian National University.
To that end, I have written to the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University. I have indicated to him my serious concerns about the prospect for licensed venues at the ANU operating in a manner inconsistent with the new regulatory regime and therefore undermining it. I have asked him to give
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video