Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 09 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2010) . . Page.. 4122 ..


had on RAMPs, I think there is no real clear line as to how one would determine whether an exemption is warranted. On that basis—and on the basis that, if there are no incidents, it is not going to be an onerous proposition—we do not see any reason to support these amendments.

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (6.34): Can I just say, for the edification of the clerks, it is obvious that this amendment will not succeed and therefore I will not be moving Amendments 15, 17, 24, 26, 30 and 32, which are consequential on this.

Proposed new clause 130A negatived.

Clause 131.

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (6.36), by leave: I move amendments Nos 16, 18 and 19 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 4141].

These amendments go to another nonsense which I referred to in my in-principle speech. It relates to the requirement for a licence holder or a licensed permit holder to maintain certain information on the incident register. Let me create a scenario which goes back to what might happen in a pub brawl in a large establishment. There would be no doubt that we should require a licensee in those circumstances to keep a record of that incident, but the problem is that, if 40 blokes are having a fight in your pub, it is going to be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to collect the name and address and contact details of each of those persons involved in that incident, especially if they decide that they are going to vacate the premises before the police come along. I think that it is an onerous burden on the licensee to, at that stage, collect information about their names, addresses and contact details. And, if you did manage to collar one of them and say, “You have to provide me, under law, your name, address and contact details,” I do not suspect that they would be very accurate and up to date.

There would be provisions in large premises for CCTV surveillance, and you could identify people afterwards. This is about not putting ridiculous burdens on licensees. We do want them to keep the records. And, in a circumstance like this, I think that the licensee and the police and the licensed people would probably go back through the CCTV records and identify people, and they might ban them from the premises or whatever, but it is impractical for bar staff and security staff in those circumstances to collect accurate information, and the licensee should not be subject to a strict liability offence in those circumstances.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (6.38): The government will not be supporting this amendment. The requirement that licensees maintain an incident register is integral to the new licensing scheme under these liquor reforms. I have already outlined the importance of this requirement in the discussion of previous amendments. Under the new scheme contemplated by the government, licensees are on notice that they have to comply with this requirement as part of the regulation of the industry. As such, strict liability is desirable. This offence, as it is currently drafted fulfils the criteria for attracting strict liability.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video