Page 260 - Week 01 - Thursday, 12 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The committee recommended a review of the Liquor Act to enable the commissioner to consider order of occupancy principles when investigating complaints in relation to a licence. As I have already stated, the order of occupancy principles provide certainty to both live music venues and nearby residents. Provisions in the Liquor Act should ensure that live community events are possible within reasonable limits.
In conclusion, I urge the government to get a wriggle on with this issue. They have had ample opportunity to develop a policy. I am disappointed that they have not taken on the advice that we provided in that committee inquiry. I hope the motion today provides the encouragement and necessary direction for the government to take this issue to the next level.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Capital Metro) (11.57): I move:
Omit paragraph (2), substitute:
“(2) calls on the ACT Government to develop a policy and actions to support live events in our community, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including Music ACT in particular.”.
I think there is unanimity across all sides of this Assembly when it comes to the need to further strengthen our policy framework and response to the issue of supporting live music in the ACT. It is an important part of renewal and urban consolidation activity as we bring a range of uses into our centres and as we aim for that objective of having more vibrant 24-hour urban environments where there is activity both day and night. As we also aim for opportunities where people can live closer to where they work, where they can access commercial and retail activities, we have to manage the emerging conflicts that come with those changes and the fact that people are living in what were previously strictly commercial or retail zones, so I welcome the motion from Mr Rattenbury today.
I have moved an amendment. The purpose of the amendment is not to say this is not something that should be done, because the government agrees it should be done. Indeed, in the last couple of weeks I have had a very constructive meeting with MusicACT to talk about the development of an overarching live music policy for the city. But part (2) of Mr Rattenbury’s motion explicitly includes a number of matters that should be part of a live music policy. I think we need to have that discussion with MusicACT. As Mr Coe has indicated, there may be issues with the application of an order of precedence model in terms of occupancy, and we need to work through those issues before we say absolutely that it is applied uniformly or commonly.
A range of issues are at play that I believe need to be addressed, and they need to be addressed in consultation with the live music industry and with the broader entertainment industry, such as liquor licensees and others. We need to undertake that work. I have had consultations with MusicACT. They indicated to me that they were a little surprised that Mr Rattenbury was bringing this motion on today, but they welcome the opportunity for further engagement with the government, and that is certainly my intention.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video