Page 4128 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
My second amendment removes two of the functions proposed by Mrs Dunne from the board. The first function is the oversight of the commissioner. The government will not support this change because it is, in effect, a usurpation of the role of the ACAT and the Ombudsman by an advisory board. The ACAT and the Ombudsman are the appropriate independent forums to scrutinise the commissioner. The government does not believe that that function should exist with the board.
The second function that the government is proposing to remove relates to the review of the act after it has been in operation for two years. The government believes that the review of the legislation should not be undertaken by a body which has been closely involved in advising the government about improvements to the legislation. The government would obviously be grateful to receive the views of the body from the board at the time the review is undertaken, but the review should be a separate process. Finally, the government proposes to insert some procedural provisions dealing with frequency of meetings and reimbursement of expenses for members of the board, and they are dealt with in my amendment.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (7.00): The Greens support Mrs Dunne’s proposal to create a liquor advisory board. We believe this is a positive initiative to provide input and expertise from people with practical experience in the liquor industry and the various stakeholders who have an interest in this quite wide-ranging industry.
Mr Corbell has moved some amendments, and I also will be supporting those amendments on behalf of the Greens. We agree that the proposal to scrutinise the work of the fair trade commissioner is, we believe, overstepping the proper role of the advisory board. I think that the government’s amendment does bring the role back to what its name suggests, which is to advise. The Greens also believe that the government amendment that makes it clear that the board is a voluntary undertaking without salary is an appropriate amendment to be making. On that basis, we congratulate Mrs Dunne and welcome her initiative to create this advisory board, and we will be supporting the amended version.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (7.01): The Canberra Liberals thank the government and the Greens for their support for the notion of a liquor advisory board, but we have some concerns with the Attorney-General’s amendments. In that regard, I will not be supporting amendment No 1. We do believe that this is a consultative role, and part of the problem is that the commissioner has an extraordinary amount of power under this act. If the commissioner became the chairman of this advisory board, it would only reinforce his power. I am not happy with that process, but I can read the numbers. Also we do believe that the functions as outlined in my amendment, especially those in relation to the operation of the review of the act, are very important. However, I do support new clauses 213D and 213E. I do not have a problem at all about the issues in relation to remuneration et cetera.
Can I seek your assistance, Madam Assistant Speaker? Can I propose that we vote on amendment No 1 and then divide amendment No 2 and vote on the three parts in amendment No 2?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video