Page 1458 - Week 05 - Thursday, 12 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
limit its attractiveness for people who may be confused as being under 18, people unlike us. While there will be no statutory bar, the card may be of limited value because of a package of important civil liberties protections, but that is an issue that perhaps can be looked at a little more closely when the Government brings down its package of legislation to facilitate the pubcard.
On the issue of liquor licensing hours, the Government sought to strike a compromise. I am pleased that Ms Szuty seems to think that we got that about right. The call for the 4.00 am curfew causes considerable concern, essentially from a public order perspective, although I acknowledge that there is strong support for that proposition from wide sectors of the community and, indeed, quite strong support for it from the police. But the Government, taking a range of advice, felt that on balance, especially from a public safety point of view, it would be counterproductive. There would be a tendency for people to swill drink in the hour or so before the curfew came into force. I noted that when Mr Humphries was on the radio this morning a chap who had been in England for a couple of years rang to say that, while there is a very strict curfew on trading at pubs and clubs in the UK, his experience as an Australian in England was that there was enormous binge drinking in the hour before the curfew came in. People would engage in heavy drinking for a period, and when the curfew came in everybody would hit the streets at the same time. That means that at 4.00 am, or whatever time it would be, thousands of young people, probably in a fairly intoxicated state, would all be on the streets at the same time, all trying to get out of Civic. There would be enormous pressures on taxis. My colleague Mr Lamont and I are working with the Community Safety Committee to find some innovative solutions to public transport after hours. But it would be a major problem to have everyone hit the streets at the same time.
Another factor is that there is a clear distinction between off-licence and on-licence premises. The responsibility of off-licensees really stops when people leave their door. They have a responsibility not to sell alcohol to young people - and we seek to enforce that - but once people leave the premises with a bottle of grog the licensees' responsibility ends. The on-licensees have an ongoing responsibility to ensure that under-age persons are not on the premises but also a legal responsibility not to serve alcohol to intoxicated persons. Months ago the Government brought two prosecutions against licensees for selling alcohol to intoxicated persons - the first such actions in memory. It is many years since such actions have been brought in the ACT. That action resulted in cancellation of licences, and that sent a very strong message to the industry - one that the AHA has responded to responsibly, saying, "Yes, we accept that action may be taken for serving alcohol to intoxicated persons". The licensee of the on-licence has a clear incentive to engage in responsible practices in the sale of alcohol. We think that we can address the problems the committee was referring to - heavily drunk people spilling over the streets of Civic and engaging in anti-social behaviour - through a responsible code of alcohol selling. That is an issue that the Community Safety Committee has been doing a lot of work on. I hope to be able to table in this place the interim report of the Community Safety Committee on the issues of drink and a safer Civic, which goes down that path.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .