Page 5324 - Week 12 - Thursday, 28 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I just want to clarify that Ms Hunter did email the parents on the same day that she met them and sent a link to the revised paper on the efficiency dividend. The point that Mr Doszpot raised was about complex amendments not being circulated in a timely way.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): The time for the discussion has now expired.
Liquor (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010
Debate resumed.
Proposed new amendment 1.23B.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.19): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name, which inserts a new amendment 1.23B [see schedule 2 at page 5351].
Madam Assistant Speaker, this amendment No 2, which inserts amendment 1.23B, goes hand in glove with the previous amendment that the Assembly passed before lunch. It is essential that they go hand in glove otherwise they will not make sense.
I listened again very carefully to the comments that the minister made in relation to clause 78. It is interesting because when this was debated with the original bill at the detail stage, the minister said that my interpretation was wrong and that it was not meant to look back at the performance of previous occupiers of the site. I thought that that was a wrong interpretation. I think that everybody finally came to the conclusion that that was a wrong interpretation. Now the minister is saying that in fact I was right and he does want to look back at the performance of the site under previous lessees.
The more that I listen to the minister on this, the more I would be concerned if we had the situation as it was. This is because if the Office of Regulatory Services is making a decision in relation to a new licence or the extension of a licence, they need to look at the premises now, as it is, when the licence application is being made.
It is incumbent upon them that they do a thorough inspection, that they are satisfied that it does meet the requirements of the act. If you look back and say that once upon a time it was a problem, you may not be taking into account any improvements that may have been made. I thank Mr Rattenbury and the Greens for their support for the previous amendment 1.23A. I understand that they will be supporting this amendment as well, which goes hand in glove.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.21): Yes, just to confirm off the back of Mrs Dunne’s comments, the Greens will be supporting this amendment for the reasons that I stated earlier. Obviously this one does link with the amendment we have already passed. We will be supporting this one as well.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.22): The government will not be supporting this amendment
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video