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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2628 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I guess I have to conclude that the Government really wanted to have this trial and, regardless of what this report says, they are going to do it. I am asking now that the evaluation mechanisms in place, which do look quite good, are not complicated by a synonymous closed-circuit TV trial occurring, because obviously that would complicate the evaluation, and that perhaps it should be for 12 months, not six months. I notice that your consultant says that that is appropriate because of the seasonal variation. I understood that you were saying six months. I am not quite clear whether you are sticking with that, but the consultant thought for seasonal variation reasons it would not make the result of the trial valid if it went for only six months.

Another thing that was referred to in this report and in quite a few of the studies was the swill mentality. That was also discussed in the initial debate. Another issue is transport. If you are going to be throwing a lot of people, who are probably very drunk, onto the streets at the same time, it is very important to have transport.

Mrs Carnell: They are not closing. They are just stopping serving alcohol. No-one is being thrown out on the street.

MS TUCKER: The people who are in the business inform me that they cannot afford to stay open if they are not selling alcohol. I have had police ring me who say there is no way they can monitor it. They do not have the resources, if a no serving of alcohol policy is in place, to monitor whether the hotels and so on are open but not serving alcohol.

To return to my final point, if you have a great number of people needing to leave the city at the same time it is very important that transport is provided. It came out very clearly in the Northern Territory trial that it was a disaster until extra bus services were put on or there was some extra accommodation of the transport needs of people who were most likely highly intoxicated. We await with interest the results of this trial, even though I am not quite sure that it was the right thing to do.

MS FOLLETT (4.22): Mr Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment on the documents that the Minister has tabled. I think the Assembly is well aware that I was opposed to the trial when it was first mooted, and my reservations about it are pretty well known. To reiterate them briefly, I am worried about the swill effect, with people trying to cram in as many drinks as they possibly can before the shut-off hour for the serving of alcohol. I think that is a danger that has to be guarded against very strenuously in the course of the trial.

I am also concerned about possible displacement of antisocial and perhaps criminal behaviour. I mean by that that people who are going to misbehave as a result of overindulgence in alcohol will simply move themselves to an area where they can do so away from the clubs and the pubs which are the subject of the trial and where the police may have a better chance of controlling that sort of behaviour than they would elsewhere, say in the parks and around private homes and so on. I am also concerned about transport issues, as is Ms Tucker. I believe that the ceasing of the service of alcohol at a particular hour will put a strain on our transport systems in the ACT. I sincerely hope that the strain on buses, taxis and so on does not result in people using private cars or perhaps hitchhiking when they are under the influence of alcohol. Both of those things would obviously be very dangerous.

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