Page 1748 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
would be onerous for small and low-risk venues such as small bars, cafes and restaurants. I quote from a discussion paper prepared in response to this bill by the Australian Liquor Stores Association:
ALSA wishes to ensure that the proposed conditions and requirements do not translate into a “you must upgrade your security system”, thus adding an unnecessary cost burden to businesses, particularly when liquor stores are considered a low-risk business in comparison to a late-night trading pub or nightclub.
As I said before, in briefings with the Attorney-General’s office and officials we were informed that this would be applied in an appropriate manner for each venue, club and outlet, but we will monitor that and we will continue to engage with industry. There is a real cost to this and we do not want people having to introduce systems unnecessarily, costing potentially tens of thousands of dollars.
The second concern that has been raised relates to the powers of the commissioner. This is certainly no slight on the current commissioner; it is an observation that the discretionary powers of the commissioner have been significantly extended. These are essentially scattered throughout the bill in various areas but include the ability to impose a wide range of conditions and exclusions, including limitations to operating hours. This was described during our consultation as a risk of individual lockouts being applied without proper process. The briefings from the government, from the minister’s office, stated that this was so that the government does not need to take a lowest common denominator approach and that the commissioner having the powers allows him or her to act with discretion in applying those powers. Again, we will look to make sure that those are applied appropriately.
Having said that, I note the hour and that there is other business to be dealt with. There are a range of other elements of the bill which I think are good and have introduced greater flexibility. Deregulation is a positive step. I know these elements have been welcomed by industry and I commend the government for them. Given the late hour, I will not go through those in detail, although I note I have great speaking notes, prepared by my office and Mr Ian Hagan, to do so. He will not be cranky at me; it is all right. He wants to go home like the rest of us.
I will just go to the compliance testing area. This is an area that has caused concern. We will oppose this clause when it is debated at the detail stage. I have already informed the minister of that. Essentially, it is commissioning minors to commit what would otherwise be a crime. We believe that it is an unsafe and unsatisfactory solution. Our view is that it is not the role of government to be sending minors into venues to ostensibly commit a crime, which is what the provisions would allow.
The LSA stated in their members’ magazine that they are concerned about the proposal to use minors for entrapment, with the prospect of immediate prosecution. The LSA are also concerned about the abuse of entrapment powers where there may be the capacity for ongoing and targeted use of those powers on particular licensees. They support an approach based on compliance history and best practice management, and they caution that policing needs to be equitable. These are valid concerns.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video