Page 5074 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Currently, under sections 183(1)(a) and (b) and 184(1)(a) and (b), licensees or permit holders are subject to occupational disciplinary action from ACAT if they or their premises do not comply with the act. This would expand the compliance requirements to include a number of other pieces of legislation. They are the Building Act 2004, the Environment Protection Act 1997, the Food Act 2001, the Roads and Public Places Act 1937, the Smoking (Prohibition in Enclosed Public Places) Act 2003, which has been renamed, and the Work Safety Act 2008. Licensees or permit holders would be exposed to the possibility of losing their licence or permit in an occupational disciplinary matter before ACAT if they contravene or are contravening any provision of any one of those acts.
In addition, a licensee or permit holder could be exposed to the penalty provisions that are carried by this act for non-compliance. I consider this a heavy-handed and grossly unreasonable approach, and we will not support it. I will introduce an amendment that omits these changes proposed by this heavy-handed, unreasonable amendment.
New part 20 of the act introduces a range of transitional provisions. They include the following. Existing licensees applying for new licences before 1 December 2010 will not need to include a police certificate if one has been provided since 1 July 2010, include certificates or plans required under a referenced section in the act, or undertake public consultation. However, the provision is deficient in that it fails to be specific as to which plans do not have to be submitted.
The explanatory statement refers to floor plans and ACTPLA certificates. But the relevant section in the bill refers to a section in the act that covers RAMPs but does not refer to plans. On interpretation, it could be held that the renewal application need not include a RAMP, but I understand this is not the government’s intention. During my briefing on the bill, I drew this to the government’s attention.
Nonetheless, there is a reasonable case to be mounted to allow licensees some latitude for the drafting and submission of RAMPs. After all, the commissioner is allowed six months under the transition provisions to assess the renewal applications. In anticipation that the government will introduce an amendment to clarify whether the RAMPs will be required to be submitted with renewal applications, I will introduce an amendment that will provide licensees with more time to prepare and submit them.
If a police certificate does need to be submitted, the licensee has 90 days to do so, but the application will not be considered until it is submitted. My amendment in relation to RAMPs will reflect this provision. The application is required to include a considerable amount of data on liquor purchases to enable the commissioner to determine the licence fee.
In the briefing on this bill, I was advised that the government will be amending the provision to reduce the level of detail required to be provided. In addition, until the commissioner makes a decision on the renewal of licence applications, the old licences remain in force. Old permits, including tourism wine permits, current when the new act starts, are taken to be commercial permits under the new act and will expire on the expiry date or after three months if no date is specified. They may be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video