Barker Rick: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12355] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 There are several matters I want to raise. Firstly I should have mentioned earlier the third amendment put forward by Pansy Wong which makes specific reference to course numbers. She thought the numbers needed to be in the legislation to ensure the industry was consulted. I agree with the intention of her amendment but I do not agree with its form. The Government’s intention is that once the legislation is passed regulations will be drawn up; and of course those regulations will go before the Regulations Review Committee. 
One of the requirements of regulations is that industry must be consulted. It may be that the hospitality industry training organisation will change the course numbers or make other changes. If we were to put course numbers in legislation it would be impossible to have the law comply. It would be complicated to get a law change in order to alter course numbers in an Act of Parliament. It is much better to have that dealt with by regulation. 
I have talked to the Hotel Association to the Beer Wine and Spirits Council and to others about it and explained how the process will work. It will be done in consultation with the industry so we agree on what the standards are and how the designations will be made. It will then be done by regulation. So if the course content and other circumstances change we can update the regulations which is much easier than getting an amendment to the Sale of Liquor Act. So although I agree with the intent of Pansy Wong’s amendment I think the process should be by way of regulation. I have given the industry my assurance that we will consult to make sure that that is what happens. 
Mr Connell claims there has been no consultation with industry over that training. I say to him that is not true. 
Brian Connell 
: That’s not what they’re saying to me Minister. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Well I say to the member that as one example I have personally talked about this matter on three occasions that I can recall with the Hospitality Association. If that is not consultation I do not know what is. If the association is saying it has not had consultation I would be surprised about that. 
The second matter I want to raise concerns the need for regulations. This is not being done to duplicate anything. The law was changed before to make manager’s certificates appropriate but we do not have a transitional process. This legislation will allow us to transit to the circumstances we have all agreed to. I think we do have to have some industry training. Mr Hide says “No” but I think we do. I do not have as dismal a view— 
Brian Connell 
: We have two units now. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: We are going to have those two units. I do not have as dismal a view as the member about industry training. I think that people are well trained and this provision will be well supported. 
 The third matter is about gift baskets which Mr Hide referred to. He makes it sound very simple—a gift basket with some alcohol put in and that can be sold everywhere. But that is not the case. What people are looking at in the industry is to be able to sell other sorts of food with beer: slabs of pizzas with beer and so on to order as takeaways. If that is the case it is well beyond what Parliament intended with the change in the Sale of Liquor Act. That is what is at the heart of the  
Lopdell 
 decision and it is the issue that I want to come back to so that we can have a clear steer on what the options are for dealing with those anomalies. 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before we put the questions I understand the whips have agreed that instead of having personal votes they wish to have split votes. I seek leave that on the question of the amendments in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 14 and the amendment in my name that notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b) the votes to be cast by a party on a party vote are to include votes cast Ayes Noes and recorded abstentions so we have split votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.