Page 4116 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There are other issues in relation to the security of the premises which the Canberra Liberals believe should not be on the public record. There are other issues about the administration of the RAMP which the opposition considers quite problematic. The fact that a belligerent customer can demand and must be provided with a copy of the RAMP at any time sets up a conflict between the good management of an orderly licensed premises and the so-called rights of patrons.
The Canberra Liberals do not object to a range of information being made publicly available, but we believe that it is necessary for security purposes to create a list of what is called “confidential information” and not require confidential information to be made available on demand. It must, of course, be made available to authorised officers, licensing inspectors and the police, but it should not be necessary for a licensee to provide information, especially about security provisions in a licensed premises, to a patron or an average member of the public.
It would be likened to requiring banks to tell the public about their security. That would never happen. I do not think it is reasonable for people who are trying to run orderly establishments to have their security jeopardised by providing security information broadly to the public. This amendment allows the commissioner to determine that certain things are confidential information. They will have to be part of the RAMP but they will not be required to provide them to the public. I commend this sensible public safety initiative to the Assembly.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (6.13): The government will not be supporting this amendment. However, I can foreshadow that the government will be making an amendment to the Liquor Bill in the subsequent consequential amendments bill that I will present to the Assembly later this year to remove the requirement for licensees to make the risk assessment management plan available to the public. The removal of this requirement will ensure that procedures to deal with intoxicated people will remain confidential between the licensee and the regulator, including the police.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (6.14): I am sorry I am looking perplexed, but I am unclear as to why it is being done in a consequential amendment and not in today’s bill. Certainly we have given consideration to Mrs Dunne’s amendment. Despite the examples she draws, the Greens would not be supporting the amendment because the purpose of the RAMPs is to identify risks and communicate how the venue plans to mitigate them. It was our view that there should be no confidential information contained in a RAMP to start with, only strategies to deal with difficult patrons. The Greens see no reason for that to be hidden. Rather than making things up on the run—and I think there is now confusion around this provision—we should be retaining that provision, but I will be looking very closely at the consequential amendments bill later in the year.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (6.14): I take the Greens’ point and I disagree with them. I can understand why they are not supporting this amendment. They have taken the view that they do not want to support it. The behaviour of the minister is extraordinary. He has actually conceded that this is a problem, but what it boils down
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video