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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 13 Hansard (Thursday, 18 November 2010) . . Page.. 5698 ..


regulations in order to support the requirement to provide food. However, the government is prepared to concede the provision.

In relation to amendment No 11, the government will be opposing this amendment. This provision makes it a requirement that in larger premises water be made available not only at the bar but also somewhere else on the premises. This is not an onerous requirement and it supports the principles of harm minimisation. In larger premises, people will not queue in long lines for a glass of water. This provision ensures that water is accessible and supports harm minimisation principles.

Finally, in relation to Mrs Dunne’s amendment No 12, the government will support this amendment. It is consequential on her amendment No 5.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (3.19): Like the government, the Greens will be supporting some of Mrs Dunne’s amendments but there are others that we will not be supporting and I will speak to each of those in a moment. But overall I want to acknowledge the work that Mrs Dunne and her office have done on this. I think they have picked up some important oversights in the legislation. We see regularly with bills that there are glitches. I think that the work Mrs Dunne and her office have done on this will make a positive contribution and I acknowledge their work on that.

With regard to the specific amendments, the Greens will not be supporting amendments Nos 1 and 2. For amendment No 1, it is our understanding that it is for both commercial and non-commercial permit holders and that non-commercial permit holders do not need a RAMP; so our understanding of the law is that this amendment is not required. Similarly with amendment No 2, section 50(2)(d) of the Liquor Act already excludes non-commercial permit holders from requiring a RAMP and on that basis we believe that this amendment is not required either.

With regard to amendment No 3, this amendment would mean that a private event for young people does not need to publish a notice in the newspaper. This, of course, excludes a public event such as a government-organised and promoted event which would continue to need newspaper advertising. We are talking here about private events. I listened to what the attorney said but we will actually be supporting Mrs Dunne’s amendment No 3 and we believe it is problematic to require that private underage events be promoted in a newspaper. Mrs Dunne spoke about this.

We have already seen in the press examples of where the sharing of the taking place of an event can be distributed very quickly via Facebook or via text message. Certainly, a friend of mine has had the recent unfortunate experience where her son invited just a couple of mates over to their house and a short time later it was a lot more people and things got out of hand very quickly. I think we are all aware of how quickly these things can take off and I think putting an advertisement in the newspaper simply increases the chance of things getting out of control and excessive numbers of people turning up that are not invited.

I know the police have done quite some work to promote the dangers of these events and it strikes me as counterintuitive to require the publishing of a notice in the newspaper. I did hear the attorney’s comments about letting people know that a venue


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