Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I have a final question on community stores. Another matter raised in the Scrutiny of Bills report which I do not think has been specifically raised and specifically answered goes to the issue of revoking a community store licence because the store does not comply with assessable matters—these newly developed matters that are in this legislation. The report says: ‘The committee expressed a concern that a decision to revoke a community store licence because the store does not comply with these newly developed assessable matters and a decision to refuse to grant a community store licence to a new applicant who has taken into account the new assessable matters in their application are treated in the same way in terms of access to merits review.’ The committee expressed a view, which I emphasise was a unanimous view of the committee, including coalition members, that the first decision—that is, revoking a community store licence because the store does not comply with these newly developed assessable matters—fits in more clearly within the emergency response scenario that the government is painting as justification for all this, as opposed to the second decision, which is with regard to a new applicant who has taken into account the assessable matters. As I understand it—I am not actually on that committee—if an existing store is as appalling as the one Senator Scullion described before question time, the sort that does exist in a few communities, you assess it against the assessable matters and if it clearly fails you can revoke the licence. Whether or not I agree that it should be merits reviewed, at least you can say that this is justifiable under emergency response powers: ‘That’s the immediate here and now. The existing store is terrible. We make this assessment, and no merits review; there’s no time.’ This also applies, as I understand it, to new applicants who take into account the assessable matters in their application.

When you are talking about someone who is a new applicant for a licence, the Commonwealth is still in a position where they can say, ‘No, we don’t think you meet the criteria here,’ but in that circumstance, according to the committee’s view—and I tend to agree with it—that is not the scenario that fits in an emergency response type of situation. You are talking about a new applicant who is yet to be given a licence as opposed to an existing applicant who is losing their licence and whether that person should also be excluded from merits review. So the committee sought the minister’s advice about whether a decision not to grant a licence to a new applicant should also be excluded from merits review, as this process would occur in full cognisance of the new assessable matters; it would not result in a non-compliant community store continuing to operate pending the review.

The justification for the emergency matters is: existing store; totally unacceptable; we cancel the licence; we do not want them to continue to trade whilst they are able to appeal under merits review. Whether or not you think that is a good thing is another matter, but that is very different to a new applicant that is not an existing non-compliant community store. The concern of the committee is that to exclude that also from a merits review is excessive and not consistent with the emergency response scenario. I would appreciate it if the minister could respond to that concern.