Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2577 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

saw were not, in their opinion, those presented to this Assembly. The AHA saw earlier drafts and other documents and went to considerable trouble, and I would guess considerable expense as well, to get legal advice on a clause-by-clause basis on those earlier drafts. They were somewhat annoyed when the final legislation that came before the Assembly was not precisely what they had seen previously, and I can understand that. It is confusing and worrying for people who are not familiar with legislation and who have difficulty reading it, as I do myself, to be presented with changes which may be of a technical or fairly minor nature but, of course, cause them great concern. So I have sympathy with them on that score.

On other scores, Mr Speaker, I think I have done what many members have to do, and that is listen to both sides of the argument and make the best judgment you can in all the circumstances. I listened to the AHA's concerns and I listened to the registrar's response to those concerns, and I have to say I have overwhelmingly come down on the registrar's side.

Mr Speaker, the Bill that is before the Assembly makes a number of changes to the way that the licensing scheme operates in the ACT. One of the biggest changes is to expand the Liquor Licensing Board from three members to five members. When our former colleague Mr Connolly first set up this board it was generally supported, and it was considered to be a good thing in getting regulation of licensed premises in the ACT on a firmer footer, and certainly in a more consultative arena. I support the expansion of the board, and I believe that it has served a very useful purpose.

I also support the inclusion of the registrar as a non-voting member of that board. I think this is the usual practice where you have some kind of an advisory board and an expert executive in charge. It is the normal practice that that executive be included on the board in some kind of ex officio capacity, and I see no reason why we should not move that way in relation to licensed premises. If there is a problem, or a problem does develop, I am only too happy to review that issue, but for the moment I do regard it as the normal course of events and I think it ought to be supported. Indeed, I think that the registrar will probably be the source of the greatest expert advice to the board and it is only appropriate, therefore, that he have some close involvement with the board.

There is also an issue, Mr Speaker, to do with occupancy loadings. The Bill allows for occupancy loadings to be determined for outdoor as well as indoor premises. I think this is a sensible innovation, particularly given the kind of outdoor cafe and entertainment industry that is so active in Canberra and is such a wonderful feature of Canberra. It is something that everybody here, I think, would be familiar with and would enjoy enormously, but I think it ought to be regulated in much the same way as any other aspect of the hospitality industry.

The issue of occupancy loadings has been a fairly fraught one before this Assembly. We have had great debate over it, but I think that everybody here would accept the authority of the Fire Commissioner in these matters. I think, therefore, it is quite appropriate, where a licensee wants to depart from or object to the Fire Commissioner's authority and ruling, that they bear the cost of finding other studies that might support

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .