Page 4774 - Week 16 - Monday, 25 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stefaniak: I will come and have a beer with you too, Terry.
MR CONNOLLY: I would be quite happy to do that at any stage. Mr Stefaniak has removed that absurdly broad position and is bringing the Bill back to apply only to interchanges. I think that demonstrates the knee-jerk nature of this type of legislation. It is reactive legislation to force a problem elsewhere. When the legislation was considered by the Social Policy Committee, the committee saw no benefit in it.
The 1989 Bill, when it was circulated, was referred to a number of groups. It was referred to the ACT Criminal Law Consultative Committee, which is a forum that examines most government proposals for changes to the criminal law. There was a difference of opinion within that committee about the policy of the Bill, and the unanimous feeling was that, in its then form, it would operate too uncertainly to be enforceable. The committee took the view that further analysis was necessary of a policy treating public drinking in itself as so socially objectionable that it needed to be made a criminal offence. That is the essential problem here. It is treating public drinking merely by way of the criminal law rather than through more innovative approaches.
The then chair of the Gaming and Liquor Authority, Mr Terry Higgins, as he then was, stated at the time that, if it was only the objectionable public behaviour that alcohol consumption occasionally gave rise to that needed to be regulated, it may be more to the point to correct any deficiencies in the laws that deal with offensive behaviour. He made a suggestion that, if an offence was thought to be necessary, the offence should perhaps be limited to read, "No person who is behaving in a disorderly manner shall drink in a prescribed public place". Indeed, GALA took the view generally that it would create problems in its enforcement.
I note from the report that this bipartisan committee, which was looking at this legislation in a dispassionate manner, not in the heat of a political debate attempting to play a law and order card, was unable to find evidence to support the need for this type of legislation. The only support was a view from the Australian Federal Police that they would like this legislation. I respect the views of the Australian Federal Police; but I am not prepared to say that, whenever the AFP view is that the criminal law should be amended to introduce a new offence, government need automatically respond. I note that that was the precise view of the bipartisan committee.
At page 27 of this report the AFP view is considered; the view of GALA is considered. Interestingly, GALA took the view that in Adelaide's Hindley Street foot police had appeared to be far more effective as a deterrent than had
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .