Tanczos Nandor: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12345] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). Despite some of the comments made by members in this House we think it is a relatively non-controversial and straightforward bill that simply tidies up a number of regulations in bits of legislation around liquor sales that are well due to be tidied up. 
There is a saying about people who swallow camels and strain at gnats. Sometimes I think that is what happens in this House. I have seen some quite draconian pieces of legislation pass through this House unremarked upon by most parties but a piece of legislation like this seems to occupy a lot of members’ time attention and concern. So I was quite curious. 
Before I get to the specific clauses I would like to address some of the comments made by the previous speaker Mr Hide. He told us that ACT would oppose the bill and he complained about a whole lot of different things—things that the bill is exactly intended to fix up. So it is quite curious to hear him say he that would vote against the bill and then moan about the things the bill is actually intended to remedy. 
It was also curious to hear him talk about the interjections made by Jill Pettis. I did not hear any interjections from Jill Pettis. I think the House has been remarkably quiet today but of course Mr Hide is the king of interjections. It was curious to hear him complaining about interjections and spending a lot of time talking about Jill Pettis and her contribution. That clearly indicated that he did not have a lot to say about the bill itself. 
I move on now to the bill which does a number of things. It retains the existing monopoly and privileges of licensing trusts and Mr Hide talked about that. The Green Party supports those aspects of the bill. Mr Hide said that in his opinion those licensing trusts offered nothing to the community. He said they did no good service and were a hindrance to the community. But the issue is that the community chooses to have them and communities have the right to vote these things out. Some communities choose to do that and some do not. The issue is really about community decision-making when it comes to licensing trusts. That is what the Greens support and that is what this bill will continue to maintain in place—as opposed to corporate decision-making which is what the ACT party stands for. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: They’re mates. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: That is quite right. One of the things the bill does is tidy up an inadvertent change made under the previous legislation that stopped wineries selling their own wine on Easter Sunday. Brent Catchpole talked about that and we agree with his position on it. I have to say that the Green Party is usually opposed to extending the commercialisation of our public holidays. We think it is important that people have shopping-free days to spend time with their families and communities rather than simply— 
Rodney Hide 
: What about marijuana-free days? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide knows he should not interject against the member in front of him. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I do not know if Mr Hide wants to smoke marijuana but that is his business and not anyone else’s. 
Usually the Greens are opposed to the commercialisation of these things. We think it is important to maintain shopping-free days because they are actually about enhancing relationships in the community. But this particular clause is just fixing up an inadvertent change that happened when the previous bill was passed so of course we will support that. If there is a case for shopping to happen on Easter Sunday I think that a vineyard is most likely to make that case. 
One of the areas of concern—and the Green Party considered this a lot—is the issue around controlled purchase operations. This basically provides an exemption so that the police can conduct sting operations for alcohol as they do for tobacco. There are concerns about the use of entrapment and there are a number of areas in the law where entrapment is used. It is quite a serious civil rights concern but we do not think it is a concern in this particular example. We think the benefits outweigh the costs in this regard. 
The reason we took that position is that when this Parliament voted to lower the drinking age to 18—something I personally supported although I was not a member of Parliament at the time—the key thing was that that change should have been accompanied by strict measures to ensure that the age limit was actually adhered to. That can be done in two ways. One is to have good messages out in the community education about what is moderate use and re-enforcement of the idea that there is an age limit which is 18. But we have to police that age limit as well. When that legislation went through Parliament we saw the introduction of drinking-age ID. At the time I was concerned about that because we very quickly see how those kinds of things can become a de facto general ID that people are required to carry with them at all times. 
It is a curious thing but it seems that in this country we now need to carry ID for just about everything except buying alcohol. Those ID cards are being used for all kinds of purposes but because there is no policing of the sale of liquor to under-age people they become essentially meaningless in that area. So we think it is important to allow the police to check that people who are selling alcohol from licensed premises are actually adhering to the law and to their obligations—both legislative and ethical—to ensure that they are not selling to under-age people. 
The other point I will touch on quickly is the issue of district licensing agencies. Again this is just about fixing some rigidities that exist in the current legislation so we think that is a good thing. This bill does not address a number of other issues where some of the provisions need to be extended and things like that. We think that some of those questions are more properly placed in a different bill but in terms of what this bill is trying to achieve we think it does the job. 
The last thing I will touch on is the issue of rice wine—the Chinese culinary cooking wine—that Mr Hide again made quite a lot of. He criticised this bill because it did not address that question. Mr Hide will know if he bothers to look on the Table that a Supplementary Order Paper has been tabled by Mr Barker for consideration in the Committee and that it specifically addresses that question.So it is rather disingenuous for Mr Hide to complain that the bill does not address the question when he knows that Supplementary Order Paper 198 is on the Table to do that very thing. I leave it to members of the House and to people listening to this debate to form their own views as to the integrity of those comments.