Page 5276 - Week 12 - Thursday, 28 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
this Act involving the premises” and, secondly—and I quote again from section 78(b)—“any proven noncompliance of the premises with a legal obligation in relation to the supply of liquor”.
Unfortunately, the government’s proposed amendment does not clarify this position. It does not provide the link of the premises with the applicant. It still continues to make the premises stand on its own in terms of assessing the application for a licence.
Section 25 provides that a person may apply for a stated licence for stated premises and outline the information about the people, premises and operations that must be supplied to the commissioner. Section 27 requires the commissioner to decide on the application based on a number of criteria. Two of those criteria relate, firstly, to whether the relevant people are suitable persons under section 67 and, secondly, to whether the premises are suitable under section 75.
Section 78, the one that we are proposing to amend, sets out the suitability information which section 76 requires the commissioner to consider when deciding whether premises are suitable under section 75. I hope you are getting all of that, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is quite clear—and it really is quite clear if you read it—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): We believe you, Mrs Dunne.
MRS DUNNE: that, contrary to Mr Corbell’s statements during the debate in the principal act in August, the suitability of premises is to be considered in the decision as to whether to grant a licence application. This amendment provides no clarification on this issue. It still potentially exposes an applicant to a refusal of a licence if the premises had a previous record of non-compliance with the act, notwithstanding that the applicant had no prior direct or even indirect connection with the premises at the time.
The application process requires the submission of risk assessment management plans. These plans should cover the management of the premises in the future. This way the commissioner can make an assessment based on proposed management practices rather than the past performance of the premises over which the applicant might have had no control. The Canberra Liberals will not support this amendment and will be proposing an amendment that will link the premises with the person.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.22): The Greens will not be supporting the government amendment on this occasion either. Mrs Dunne has just foreshadowed the amendments that she will be moving and we believe that those are the better amendments. The amendment proposed by the government would require new licence applicants to provide information on previous owners’ convictions regarding the venue, as opposed to the current wording which is for any conviction relating to the premises. That in itself is an improvement, but I believe that the amendments that Mrs Dunne is going to move are better because they restrict new applicants and renewal applicants to provide information about convictions they themselves have committed rather than the past owners.
The Greens believe that it is fair that a new licence applicant not be judged by the convictions of past licensees. The suitability of the venue itself, we believe, will be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video