Page 5699 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
would be closed for the evening and the like. But, whilst there is some merit in that, I think that overall Mrs Dunne’s amendment makes sense.
Amendment No 4 removes the prohibition on off-licensees displaying advertising outside the designated display area and we will also be supporting this amendment. I think that the fears of the off-licence venues are probably a reflected unintended consequence of the legislation and I certainly agree with the policy intent of the government. But, faced with a choice between removing this provision now or delaying the commencement while the government sorts it out, I think the cleaner and more desirable approach is to delete a provision that has some unintended consequences, and the government can bring forth another regulation when it is has done some further work on this and come up with a drafting or a form that avoids those unintended consequences.
I think it is simply cleaner rather than postponing the commencement; to my mind that would create a more confusing arrangement for licence holders to have to have the thing put on hold and then have a new version come through later. I think it is simply cleaner this way.
With regard to amendment No 5, which allows for a toilet to be locked and accessed by a key for restaurants and cafes, as has been noted, this is the status quo for cafes. It is a system that seems to work well. I think it does address security concerns that can arise and we will be supporting Mrs Dunne’s amendment No 5; similarly amendment No 6 which links to amendment 5.
Amendment No 7 deletes the requirement for a venue of over 300 persons occupancy loading to have someone watching a live video footage of a secluded toilet access. The Greens will also be supporting this amendment. Whilst the current rules indicate that the commissioner can increase the occupancy loading for a venue of more than 300 if deemed necessary or to a higher level, we believe that overall this is a requirement that is excessive. Having video monitoring is appropriate for these sorts of locations but to simply require somebody to watch it full time live we believe is an unnecessary burden that is not proportionate to the harm that is seeking to be avoided. I listened to the attorney and he indicated this is a place where there is the potential for assault. Whilst that is true, I think there is the opportunity for assault in many parts of bars and we will be supporting Mrs Dunne’s amendment as we believe it provides a better outcome.
Amendment No 8 changes the requirement for the name to be displayed over the bar from that of the duty manager to that of the licensee. We will be supporting this. We believe it is a commonsense amendment as the licensee has the majority of legislative responsibilities, not the manager, and it is therefore appropriate to display that person’s name; also as the licensee is of course the one who is on the licence and will be responsible if a matter results in a breach, a warning or something similar.
Amendment No 9 deletes the requirement for detailed information on the type and amount of liquor sold to be provided to the Chief Health Officer on the basis that it is too onerous. We will not be supporting this amendment. We believe that information about alcohol consumption is important to enable evidence-based policy. This is a key
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video