Page 4773 - Week 16 - Monday, 25 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
LIQUOR (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Debate resumed from 11 September 1991, on motion by Mr Stefaniak:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.18): The Labor Government does not support this Bill, because it believes that the Bill is unnecessary. Interestingly enough, the view of the Labor Government that this Bill is unnecessary reflects squarely the views - the unanimous views, I would say - of the Standing Committee on Social Policy in its public behaviour inquiry report of February 1990. That committee was chaired by Mr Wood, the deputy chair was Mrs Nolan, and it consisted also of Dr Kinloch, Ms Maher and Mr Stevenson.
The committee report was noted. I have read the statement and I see nothing in the additional comments to suggest that liquor consumption ought to be banned in public places. I see additional comments that there should be prohibition of advertising and that there should be some movement on licence hours, and there are some comments on move-on powers. But there is no suggestion anywhere in the report that the legislation Mr Stefaniak is proposing - and that was referred to the committee - should be supported.
The Government's view, I stress, is not a political stunt. The Government's view is consistent with the calm and dispassionate assessment of this Bill, or a Bill in almost identical terms, by a non-partisan committee of this Assembly some year-and-a-half ago. I would be disappointed if members who took part in this quite extensive inquiry have changed their minds purely as the result of a political stunt.
The Government's view has always been, in a sense, that to ban drinking in a public place will only push the problem somewhere else - to the extent that there is a problem with consumption of alcohol in a public place. The original Bill proposed by Mr Stefaniak had some fairly absurd consequences. The most amusing consequence, in my view, was the provision which purported to ban the consumption of alcohol in a public place within 200 metres of a bus stop.
My residence has a bus stop diagonally across the road from it, and it is not uncommon on a warm afternoon, if I am out mowing the nature strip, which is a public place, for my spouse to produce a tinnie of cold beer when I have finished mowing the nature strip. For me to have a cold beer on the nature strip, while sweating after mowing the lawn, would have been rendered unlawful and I could have been arrested for such behaviour. I note that Mr Stefaniak has retreated somewhat from that absurd position.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .