Page 4775 - Week 16 - Monday, 25 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
dry areas legislation, that is, policing the problem of disorderly behaviour, of - let us be frank - criminal conduct. If a person is abusing another, threatening to assault another, acting in the hooligan-like manner Mr Stefaniak is so fond of quoting, that person is committing an offence.
It is perfectly appropriate for the police, under their ordinary operational procedures, to deal with persons so committing an offence. You do not need a dry areas law to provide for that. The police in their ordinary duties of foot patrolling can deal with them. If a person is acting unlawfully and breaching the law now, he ought to be dealt with under the law. If a person is consuming a cold stubbie but is in no other way committing anti-social or offensive behaviour or threatening a person physically or verbally, if that person is sitting there quietly consuming the cold stubbie that I would consume on my nature strip, having mowed the lawn, why do we need to make that a criminal offence? We should focus on the objectionable behaviour, not on the mere fact of consuming alcohol.
This committee made a unanimous recommendation. Although Mrs Nolan, Dr Kinloch and Mr Stevenson felt it appropriate to make additional comments at the back of that report, none of them referred to this matter. So, nobody dissented from that view. The committee stated at page 27:
The Committee discussed this recommendation at length -
that is the Stefaniak recommendation for dry areas legislation -
but drew the conclusion that it would not recommend such a change because of the difficulties inherent in defining and setting the limits of non-drinking areas. It did not, therefore, support this proposal.
I think that is an eminently sensible view. The committee took evidence on behavioural problems and, in respect of the issue of alcohol, was looking for evidence that, for example, bus interchanges were such a problem that it warranted action.
At pages 7 and 8 of the report the committee goes on to discuss the problem of public behaviour at bus interchanges. Does it find that there is a need for dry areas legislation at the bus interchanges? Does it find that there is a need for significant amendment to the criminal law because of behaviour at bus interchanges? It does not, and I stress again that that is the dispassionate finding of a bipartisan Assembly committee.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .