Page 3162 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 11 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am a little bit disappointed and somewhat surprised by Mr Connolly's quotes in the Canberra Times of 5 September 1991 in which he rejects the move for a public place alcohol ban. I was hoping from initial talks that we might be getting somewhere, because of the South Australian experience and because Mr Connolly, as a South Australian, knows how well dry areas work in that State.
Basically, this is what this legislation is about: It creates a few dry areas in problem places. All I can assume is that some of the ideologues in Mr Connolly's party - obviously a majority - have got at him, because he has changed his tune. Some of the points put forward in that article by him on behalf of his party are quite spurious. This does not affect the situation of a few beers or a glass of wine with barbecues at the picnic spots. I know that that is part of the lifestyle of the average Canberra family. There is nothing wrong with that and this does not affect that in the slightest. In fact, it protects the average Canberra family from yobbo behaviour which the average Canberra family sees around some of the problem areas and does not like.
Mr Speaker, I commend this Bill to the Assembly and hope that the majority of the Assembly will have the commonsense, which the vast majority of the Canberra citizens have, to vote to ban drinking around these problem areas. I seek leave to present the explanatory memorandum to my Bill.
Leave granted.
Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned.
ROYAL CANBERRA HOSPITAL BILL 1991
MR MOORE (11.21): Before I proceed on the Royal Canberra Hospital Bill, I move:
That standing order 200 be suspended in its application to the Royal Canberra Hospital Bill 1991.
I am proceeding in this fashion because a number of precedents have been set in this chamber whereby standing order 200 prevents anybody other than a Minister from presenting a Bill the object or effect of which is to dispose of money. This Bill clearly does have that impact - to the extent of some $13m, actually.
Ms Follett: And the rest.
MR MOORE: Some would argue, even more. From the feasibility study presented by Mr Berry, it entails some $13m in recurrent expenditure. I think that the issue is of such concern to the Canberra community that it ought to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .