Page 3312 - Week 11 - Thursday, 12 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (5.54), by leave: I move:
Omit "30 November 1991", substitute "29 February 1992".
I do not need to speak to the amendment. It has been discussed pretty well before, and I commend it to the house.
MR SPEAKER: I draw your attention to another issue, Mr Humphries. You got leave to speak a second time. You need leave under standing order 142 to move that amendment.
Leave granted.
MR MOORE (5.55): This amendment improves the original motion somewhat. However, I am disappointed that this has not been sent to an Assembly committee. I think there is a great misunderstanding about a committee of inquiry looking into alcohol and planning and leasing matters, safety issues and all those associated things, and coming out with a concrete answer in a short time. Investigations into drug use and other areas have not found that an appropriate and profitable way to operate. The most sensible way to operate is for a long-term committee to take the problems step by step.
Anybody who thinks there are going to be simple black-and-white answers to problems associated with alcohol is wrong. It does not work that way. In many countries where penalties have been tightened up the impact has been just the opposite. It requires not a clean sweep but a very sensible approach and, I would argue, by a parliament, with recommendations to take things a bit at a time.
I believe that this inquiry has the potential to cost a significant amount of money without really making a major contribution to a solution to the problems. If the terms of reference are reworked - and there is room for that - perhaps something can be gained by it, but I wonder at what price. I think the methodology being employed by the Assembly is entirely inappropriate. The appropriate thing to do, before we consider this motion, is to come up with proper terms of reference.
An hour-and-a-half ago we should have adjourned the debate and ensured that we had a sensible discussion on the best terms of reference. Instead, within five minutes of coming into the Assembly this afternoon we had the final form of this motion. Even with the amendments and the juggling on the floor of the house, it is the wrong way to operate. The motion should have been adjourned. I therefore think it is appropriate that we actually now move to adjourn the debate, and I do so.
MR SPEAKER: You have already spoken, so you do not have the right to do that, Mr Moore.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .