Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2578 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

their position. Mr Speaker, I think that is a fair system. After all, the Fire Commissioner and his work is a public expense and in the interests of community safety. If a licensee wants to make a change to increase occupancy loadings in their own commercial interest it is only appropriate that they should pay for that.

The Bill also gives a great range of powers to the registrar, in particular powers to refer a matter to the board where he believes there are grounds that the board might want to issue directions to a licensee. It includes grounds for suspension of a licence or a reprimand; it provides a new section which effectively tightens this up; and it specifies more clearly what the grounds are for punishing licensees.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, as I said, I do support this Bill. I think it is a necessary tightening up of the licensing regime in the ACT. I know that the AHA is particularly concerned about the relations which they have with the registrar and the inspectors. That is a matter that I think ought to be addressed. I think there has to be a level of professional respect there, and I would like to see the Minister encourage that so that in future the legislation is treated with respect by both sides. I think that is what we ought to be working towards. Mr Speaker, we will support this legislation.

MR MOORE (11.15): Mr Speaker, I have significant doubts about this legislation, and to illustrate those doubts I thought, for a slight change, I would relate a little story about the Liquor Licensing Board and urinals. I think it illustrates a point very clearly. A couple of years ago, when Mr Connolly was in charge of this area, I approached him on behalf of a constituent who was trying to establish a restaurant quite close to here. That constituent came to me and said that the liquor licensing public servants were telling him that he had to change the urinals that were close to the restaurant because it was part of the regulations. It was in the manual and they had to be changed from porcelain urinals to stainless steel urinals. When they got the price it was in the order of $20,000. It was a very substantial amount of money and it was going to be very difficult for the business to deal with. I wrote to Mr Connolly and said, "This seems to me to be ridiculous because there is only just over a metre of room. No additional people would be able to stand in this section. There are already two porcelain urinals and they are going to be replaced by a stainless steel one of just over a metre. What is the point of this?". A reply came back to me saying, "I am sorry, but it is clearly set out in the manual and therefore it is going to have to remain".

I sat on that for a day or two and thought, "Well, if the manual is there, I suppose we have to fit in with the regulations". Then I thought, "Damn that; I will ask who wrote the manual". I went up to Mr Connolly's office and I said to him, "Where did the manual come from? Who wrote the manual? Is it an agreement between the States?". He said to me, "I am almost sure it was put together as an agreement between States to ensure that these things are right, but I will get on the phone and ask". Right there and then, in front of me, Mr Connolly, who often did things like this quite efficiently, got on the phone and asked, "Who wrote the manual?". The reply was, "Actually, I did". In fact, the person who was saying, "No, you cannot do this because it is in the manual" was the same person who wrote the manual.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .