Page 4981 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 11 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In the vast majority of cases the matter will be straightforward and the registrar will approve the application concerned after having considered the report from the deputy registrar. If, however, there is a difficulty with the matter, such as a criminal record which suggests that a person is not fit and proper to hold a licence, the registrar will refer the matter to the Licensing Board. Because the registrar is a member of the Licensing Board it would be inappropriate for the registrar to have reached a concluded view prior to considering the matter as part of the board. For this reason the Bill is drafted in such a way that the registrar is required only to consider whether the case is of a type that should be considered by the board.
Once the matter comes before the board it can be dealt with in a number of different ways under the board's flexible procedures. If the facts are straightforward and the issue is one of policy, the board might decide the matter on the papers. If, however, the facts are not clear, the board might direct the deputy registrar to make further inquiries. If the facts remain unclear after those administrative inquiries, or if the issues are such as to make it appropriate, the board will convene an oral hearing at which legal representation is allowed. Hopefully, such oral hearings will be relatively infrequent; but, where they are required, a full court style of procedure can be adopted if that is the only way in which fairness can be achieved. Of course, once the board takes it decision, an appeal will generally lie to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, whose decision is final, except on points of law, which can be taken to the Supreme Court.
In summary, these are worthy reforms that will enhance the operating efficiency of the TAB and ensure an efficient and accountable system of liquor regulation.
MR CONNOLLY (8.58): An Opposition can have a variety of reasons for opposing government legislation. In this case, in relation to the Gaming and Liquor Authority, our reason is the most basic. We really do not understand where the Government is coming from. The Gaming and Liquor Authority is an organisation which has performed its task exceptionally well. As Ms Follett quoted, even the Priorities Review Board, in its report, noted that it had achieved quite remarkable administrative efficiencies since 1981. It had reduced its staff allocation from some 76 to 37 and at the same time dramatically increased its turnover.
It is a body that is widely respected throughout the industry. The principal client group, if you like, the bodies dealt with by that regulatory agency - the club industry and the Hotels Association - have full confidence in GALA and support the work that GALA has been doing. This just seems to be an unnecessary process of scrambling eggs for the sake of being seen to produce some activity.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .