Page 5696 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Turning to the amendments, Mrs Dunne’s first amendment appears to be based on the premise that a food and wine stall would be non-commercial. Food and wine stalls can be both commercial and non-commercial and, as such, the example is a fitting indicator of the type of information that should be included in a risk assessment management plan. The government will therefore not be supporting this amendment.
In relation to the second amendment, this section already does not apply to non-commercial permits by virtue of the act, which states that an application for a permit must include a risk assessment management plan if the application is for a commercial permit. The government will be opposing this amendment. We believe it is misconceived.
In relation to Mrs Dunne’s third amendment, the government will also be opposing this amendment. This provision relates to a licensee conducting an event on licensed premises in an adults-only area. Adults-only areas are determined as areas where young people should not enter or remain. Events in these areas need to have boundaries and, if this provision is removed, all events will become private. The consequences of this are that the licensed premises will be closed to anyone apart from the young people the event was organised for and the people approved to work there, and no-one will know. The public will travel to their favourite nightspot and, when they get there, find that it is not open.
Additionally, the provision informs parents whose teenager may attend the event what time the event ends so that they can organise appropriate transport and it removes any doubt that the event may finish early. Removing this provision removes information about what is going on for the public and interested parties and protections for young people. It does so for no good reason and the government cannot support it.
In relation to amendment No 4, the government will also oppose this amendment. The policy intent of this provision is to prevent incidental purchasing of liquor and prevent exposure of children to liquor. Supermarkets are the type of place where children are common. Without this provision, supermarkets would be able to display promotions around their premises that may inadvertently impact on minors—for example, a promotion linking beer with a bag of potato chips, which was seen recently by regulatory officers. This sort of promotion should be allowed but only within an area where parents can expect there to be liquor promotions.
I have received concerns from supermarkets that this provision may have the unintended consequence of capturing catalogues and pamphlets. If this amendment is defeated, I intend to delay the commencement of these provisions for six months to allow the provision to be clarified. However, I believe that giving parents the ability to avoid their children being inadvertently exposed to liquor is a good thing.
Turning to Mrs Dunne’s amendment No 5, the government will support this amendment. It is sensible and allows shared facilities to be controlled and access to others to be restricted, for the safety of all. Turning to amendment No 6, the government will also support this amendment, as it travels with the previous amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video