Page 4096 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
adults-only area for young people’s events. It allows 90 days for the approval process, but the approval expires at the earlier time stated in the approval or 24 hours after the approval comes into force. This requires considerable, very accurate and long lead times, which is quite at odds with the culture of young people.
Mr Corbell’s liquor bill even carries elements of nonsense. Division 8.6 requires licensees and permit holders to maintain a register of incidents that occur in certain defined circumstances. The register has to record certain information, including the name, address and contact details of each person connected with an incident. A strict liability offence occurs if the record is not maintained.
What happens if the people involved in the incident do a runner before the bar owner gets a chance to ask them for their names and addresses? Will he be subject to a strict liability offence if he does not run down the street after them with pen and paper in hand? This is clearly nonsensical. Then, of course, there is the issue of what happens if the police become involved. In that instance, the police also have to create a record of the incident. Will it be necessary for the bar owner to continue to maintain an incident record and therefore maintain two records of the same incident? What happens if there is conflict? And when does responsibility for maintaining and keeping the record of the incidents stop? Is it when the matter goes to court? Is it when the people involved leave the premises? Is it when the police get involved? Is it when an ambulance arrives? We do not know, and the bill does not tell us.
Another potential nonsense relates to the risk assessment management plans. The bill would require RAMPs to be available for public inspection. However, elements of RAMPs may go to matters of security and other information which, if they became known to the public, may adversely impact on the very objectives of the bill to achieve harm minimisation and public safety. This would be a nonsense.
The bill also fails to take the bureaucratic process through to the end. Division 9.3 deals with caution notices to children and young people and provides that the chief police officer can revoke a caution notice. In so doing, the CPO must destroy the caution notice held by the police and must tell the Children and Young People’s chief executive and the commissioner. However, there is nothing in the bill that requires the chief executive or the commissioner to destroy their copies of the caution notice. This may stand against the child or young person at a future time and there is almost the certainty that there will be conflicting records.
As I mentioned earlier, this bill carries insufficient onus on the consumer to be responsible for their actions and behaviour. The bill carries a number of consumer onus offence provisions and penalties but could go a lot further to encourage and support our society in education programs and in the promotion of responsible consumption of alcohol. For example, there could be more community education programs about liquor, the consumption of liquor and the effect that it will have on the broader community. Or there could be a requirement that an offender either charged with an offence or given a caution be directed to undertake an education program about the responsible consumption of alcohol. This certainly would support the approach of liquor companies in the promotion of their key products these days in which there generally is an underlying call on drinkers to consume alcohol in moderation. (Extension of time granted.)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video