Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (27 March) . . Page.. 682 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

As I said, we will be opposing Mr Osborne's Bill, and I can assure the Assembly that it is not because I have any brief whatsoever for the AHA. I disagree, in fact, with the points of view they have put forward. I believe that the statistics they put forward to support their case a couple of months ago were quite fatally flawed. The decision my party has reached in relation to this matter is as a result of our examination of the practicalities of the issue. We have decided that, for our part, the Bill ought not to be supported. In saying that, I believe that Mr Osborne has brought the matter forward from the very best of intentions, and I hope that there is a solution to this issue. My own view is that that solution must involve the licensees themselves being brought to book on issues such as the serving of alcohol to under-age drinkers and the serving of alcohol to people already intoxicated or affected by alcohol. I do not believe that we would have this issue on the Assembly's agenda at all if it were not for one or two licensees in Civic failing to live up to the requirements of their licence in regard to those two issues.

I regret that this step has had to come about. I think there probably are better ways of achieving the objectives Mr Osborne has set out to achieve. I also consider that the increased policing we have seen in Civic over recent months has had an effect. There has been a reduction in crime; there has been a reduction in unacceptable behaviour; there have been arrests and charges have been laid. If Civic got a reputation for being a very well policed area, 24 hours of the day, we might indeed see the problem resolving itself. We oppose the Bill; but I would, of course, support any reasonable action that further reduced the level of crime, the level of unacceptable behaviour, as a result of alcohol consumption, and particularly action that protected the rest of the community as well. I am concerned that we might see these issues breaking out in other areas.

MR MOORE (11.06): In rising to speak on this Bill, I think it is important to indicate, first of all, that I have prepared and circulated some amendments. I foreshadow that, in the detail stage, I will be moving those amendments, which provide for a sunset clause to this piece of legislation, so that it is available to the Government for only nine months. That meets, to a certain extent, the criticism put by Ms Follett that we are handing over power to the Government, except for veto. So that will be limited to nine months, although I would like to make the point that it may have slipped Ms Follett's mind that we passed an addition to the disallowance legislation that now allows amendment as well as disallowance. So it is not just a case of being able to veto; we also have the power, when a regulation is put up, to modify that regulation. That is not to undermine the fundamental point Ms Follett made that this is a shift of power from the legislature to the Executive. I accept that that is the case. I do not think it is the best way to go about it. However, I am prepared to accept it on a nine months basis, which is why I am putting this up.

While I am dealing with issues raised by Ms Follett, I should explain to her, as I have done on a number of occasions, the consistency of my position on this issue, as with illicit drugs. Whilst I believe that prohibition does not work, I have always believed in a system of controlled availability, and it is a system that does have restrictions on it. I have never believed that we should have free access to any drug, and that includes alcohol and tobacco. So it is actually a quite consistent approach. The question we are dealing with is: What are the controls and how we are going to tinker with the controls

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .