Page 4112 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 2010

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

---

Mr Rattenbury says he would hope that the commissioner does not make the paperwork onerous. Well, that is a very good hope. It is quite obvious today that this amendment is not going to get up, so I commend the prospective liquor advisory board to look closely at this to ensure that the level of paperwork is not so onerous that non-offending, inoffensive, service-providing local restaurants are not caused undue consideration.

I will call a division on this amendment, but, after that, I will not move amendments Nos 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29 and 33.

MR CORBELL: (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.53): Mrs Dunne is trying to create the bogey of an avalanche of red tape in relation to small venues. Whilst I can appreciate that she is seeking to do this to shore up her support amongst perhaps some of her constituents, it is simply not the case. The provision of a RAMP is a common requirement for almost all liquor licensees in New South Wales. Go across the border to Queanbeyan, go across the border to Goulburn or Yass and small venues are having to take account of their risks as part of their liquor licensing regime.

What we are doing is little different to that. Obviously, small venues that have had no problems, that are run well and that manage the sale of alcohol well are not going to have a lot of work to do in delivering their RAMPs. They are not going to have to go through the extensive consideration that perhaps a large nightclub that has lots of people and has had issues in the past is going to have to go through.

We have to keep these issues in perspective. We have to recognise that we need everyone to operate on a common playing field, because that is the only way we get the data to assess and manage risk, as I outlined in my earlier comments. Will it be onerous? No, it should not be onerous for those small venues that are managing their risks, that have good compliance records and that are running their businesses well. In that regard, I think Mrs Dunne’s fears are unfounded.

Question put:

That Mrs Dunne’s amendment be agreed to.

Question so resolved in the negative.

At 6 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

---

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