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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (27 March) . . Page.. 688 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

is to close pubs and clubs. That is certainly not my intention. My intention is to restrict the sale of alcohol. I certainly will not be legislating in any way whatsoever to force pubs and clubs to shut their doors. That is a choice they and they alone make. When that petition is tendered here in the Assembly, I will be more than happy to sign it, because it is not my intention to force anyone to shut.

Another thing I would like to speak about is the impact the Institute of Criminology will have on this concept of mine. I initially spoke to Mr Moore about it, and I thank him for his support. He was kind enough to steer me in the direction of the Institute of Criminology. I had a meeting there for about an hour and a half with the director and a number of senior criminologists, and we spoke about the Northern Territory situation. It would be foolish for me to say that we should not look at different trials and different data. It would be absolutely silly for me to do that. But, as Mr McDonald said to me, there is no way he could say categorically one way or the other, by looking at a trial conducted in the Northern Territory, whether it would have a good or a bad impact on us here in the ACT.

I have been approached by the AHA a number of times, I have had meetings with independent hoteliers, and I have spoken to many people on this issue. They have come to me with different points of view and I have said, "Show me something in black and white. Show me some sort of data that will support your case". Not once has anyone come forward with anything that would specifically show that running a trial like this in the ACT would be good or bad. That is why, rather than calling for an outright ban, I have tempered my own views a little and gone down the path of this trial. I think it is very important on this issue that we have some facts and figures in front of us. There is no point in someone coming to me and saying, "We are going to have a 3 o'clock binge", or "We are going to have a 4 o'clock binge", or "We are going to have a 5 o'clock binge", because no-one can categorically show me that that will be the case.

Some of the points Ms Tucker raised about domestic violence and serious assaults are very valid, and they are things that need to be taken into consideration. Mr McDonald, from the Institute of Criminology, with whom I spoke again this morning, indicated on the day I had the meeting with him that it could take anything up to six weeks to two months for them to set up this whole process so that at the end of the day they can come back with a professional and expert opinion for us in the Assembly to consider. I am sure that they will be looking at data from overseas and they will be looking at data from the Northern Territory. Ms Tucker said that we should look at San Francisco and Los Angeles and at the problems they have there. I think it is a lot like comparing Darwin with Canberra to say that we are going to have the same types of problems. I have been to both cities, and they are certainly two different cities. That is why I believe in having the Institute of Criminology very heavily involved.

I would like to touch briefly on nine points the AHA have raised. They are, as Mr Moore said, well worth looking at; but I would suggest that the majority of those are things that should be put in place irrespective of the big stick being held over them. A lot of what they have here is things they should be doing anyway, and I hope that, whatever the outcome of this debate, and whether we finally come to 3 o'clock or whatever,

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