Page 4101 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
with the high risk activities are free to do so, but they will pay a larger slice of the cost involved in policing late night patrons.
Because risk-based licensing poses such an important reform to business, it is important to be as clear as possible in describing those factors that will be taken into account in calculating risk. It is also important that those actual factors listed can calculate risk as accurately as possible. The Greens have prepared an amendment that does clarify those factors that must be taken into account, and I will speak to that issue later in the debate.
A subset of the risk-based licensing regime is the risk assessment management plans, otherwise known as RAMPs, that licensed venues will be required to prepare. Part 5 of the bill sets out the head of power for RAMPs. RAMPs are one aspect of the reforms that have attracted commentary from existing pubs and clubs. At the outset I will say that the Greens agree in principle that each licensed venue in the ACT should be required to prepare a RAMP. At their most basic level, they are documents that will require the licensee to proactively address certain risks in their venue and describe how they will be managed on a day-to-day basis. Part 5 creates the head of power for the commissioner to approve a RAMP, and it is the regulations which will prescribe the precise details that must be included in the RAMP.
The regulations will be presented later this year, and I undertake that the Greens will be scrutinising the detail to ensure they are appropriate and do not go further than is required. Here I pick up on some of the comments that Mrs Dunne has made about acknowledging the difference in venues. I think the RAMPs are one place where that difference needs to be incorporated or recognised. But, for now, debate should focus on the concept of RAMPs and the legislation under part 5.
As I have said, the Greens agree with the principle that a venue be required to proactively address risks before they arise. This is a good principle, and the Greens support it. The draft exposure regulations give some guidance as to what will be in RAMPs, and the government appear headed in a responsible direction. For example, the RAMPs will include a list of measures to be taken to ensure responsible service of alcohol. They will also need to include information on how the venue will deal with intoxicated people and how disorderly people will be dealt with. They will also include details of what transport is available and how the licensee will help people find transport. These are all good measures that the licensees should be thinking about, and the RAMP will focus their minds.
The finalised regulations will come later this year and we will scrutinise them, as I said. We will hold final judgement until then, but we are cautiously supportive of the direction the government are heading. To be clear, though, we will not allow regulations if they are inappropriate or somehow excessive.
The second big ticket item is the 10 new late night police to be employed as a result of this bill. The cost of the new police will be raised, in part, from the licensing fees. The new police are an opportunity to embrace a preventative model of policing. I was heartened to hear from the Chief Police Officer that they do intend to take such an approach to alcohol-related violence and harm. During the budget estimates process earlier this year, the Chief Police Officer agreed that there was little point in throwing more beat police at alcohol-related violence and that a better strategy is needed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video