Page 5073 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
a range of transitional provisions. Schedule 2 makes a consequential amendment relating to amendments made under the Smoking (Prohibition in Enclosed Public Places) Amendment Act 2009 which start on 1 December as well, including the renaming of the principal act to the Smoke-Free Public Places Act 2003.
I take the opportunity to highlight a few of the amendments. The amendments to the commencement provisions are intended to allow people in the industry until 1 December 2011 to get their necessary responsible service of alcohol certificates. RSA trainers would be allowed until 1 May 2011 to develop their course offerings and get them approved. However, during my briefing on this bill, for which I thank the attorney, I did not point out but my staff pointed out an important drafting error which, if it remains in place, means a difference of three months for certain commencement elements.
Section 78 requires the commissioner to consider the suitability of the premises when deciding to issue, amend or renew a licence or permit. This section enables the commissioner to look at the history of the premises and take that into account. During the debate on this section in August, I sought an amendment that would link the history of the premises to the application of a licensee.
The government and the Greens voted my amendment down but they did so, I contend, on a false premise. In that debate the attorney claimed that the operation of the section did not apply to new licence applications. But the section quite clearly, through reference to other relevant sections in the act, applies to new licences in exactly the same way as it does to a renewal or an amendment.
The government has sought to clarify this matter by adding a note to the section indicating that the section applies to decisions of the commissioner to issue, amend or renew licences or permits. This note serves to confirm my interpretation of the section when the original bill was debated in August. During the detail stage I will be proposing an amendment to address this situation.
Section 124(4)(c) requires staff members or crowd controllers, when giving a receipt for seizure of false identification, to give a receipt that includes their name and how they can be contacted. The amendment in this bill would require crowd controllers, rather than give their name, to give their identification number under the security industry regulation, to protect their privacy. However, there is no such protection for the staff member who gives a receipt—the staff member, somebody who works behind the bar. They still provide their name and how they can be contacted.
The attorney, in his presentation speech for the bill, commented that the amendment for the crowd controllers would protect them from any retaliation, but no such protection is afforded to staff. I will be presenting an amendment that both introduces efficiency and addresses that shortcoming.
The bill removes section 128, thus removing the requirement for licensees to make risk assessment management plans, or RAMPs, available for public inspection. This is a good amendment. However, it leaves a potential loophole, albeit a remote potential, for someone to get access to RAMPs through the commissioner. I will introduce an amendment to address this loophole.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video