Page 5694 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This amendment would put the ACT in line with other jurisdictions, for example New South Wales, where the name of the licensee is displayed. It would be permanent for as long as the licensee holds the licence. It relieves just one more piece of the great pile of government red tape from businesses and employees in the ACT.
Amendment No 9 omits the requirement for licensed retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers to provide the Chief Health Officer with detailed annual reports of sales. There are several problems with this apparently innocuous provision. Firstly, it places yet more administrative burden on business owners. Secondly, we have heard previously that provision of sales in litres, especially by retailers, is very difficult and unreliable. That is why the reporting requirement in the act was changed to wholesale purchases in dollars.
Thirdly, sales are not always made to ACT purchasers. The data may not be readily separated from sales within the ACT and outside. Fourthly, there will be considerable duplication in the statistics that will be provided from three sources. That duplication will not be able to be identified; thus the data will be extremely unreliable. Fifthly, much of the data required under this provision already is available from other sources, including the Bureau of Statistics. Any data the Chief Health Officer requires is readily and simply available and probably from a more reliable source. Sixthly, the government has not articulated its reasons for requiring this information and what it will be used for.
The 10th amendment omits the requirement for kitchen facilities to be installed in the premises as well as requiring the specifications for those facilities. This is really the stuff of the nanny state and micromanagement, particularly in relation to the equipment, all of which really amounts to a statement of the bleeding obvious. Secondly, some licensed premises have food service arrangements with outside providers. To require a fully equipped, operational kitchen in those circumstances is yet another unreasonable impost on business. In any case, there are food and health regulations which come into play in food service. So yet again we have duplication, confusion and incompleteness. And I think that an example of micromanagement is that this part of the regulation specifies that there must be a preparation surface of not less than one square metre.
The penultimate amendment removes the requirement for a separate dedicated water station to be provided at premises carrying an occupancy loading of 300 or more. Currently the situation is that all points of sale for alcohol in licensed premises must have access to water. Patrons must have access to water at all points of sale. This regulation would mean that, if the occupancy loading of the establishment is more than 300 people, there will have to be another stand-alone water station as well.
The problem with this is that it opens up the opportunities for a range of antisocial behaviours. It means that the water station would not be appropriately monitored. This could lead to drink spiking. There could be water fights. There could be consequential risks with wet floors, especially in large premises in excess of 300. They usually have a dance floor. That is why they are large. And the feeling is that if you get water on the dance floor you are actually going to have problems.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video