Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2632 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
I simply note that the Labor Party was in strong opposition to the idea of
this trial in the first place. We will not know whether the examples in this
literature of the success of restricting trading hours would be an applicable
precedent for the ACT unless we have a trial of this kind. As the authors of
the review note, there is an idiosyncratic impact of trading hours in
particular contexts, and I honestly could not say whether the examples cited
from this literature would be more likely or not to apply to the ACT. There is
one way of finding out, and that is by having a trial of this kind, a trial
that is carefully evaluated and the details of which I have already outlined.
I take members' comments about political options and not being prepared to grandstand and make political points about this sort of thing. I indicate that I have no strong perception of its succeeding or failing. If the indicators are that the trial has not been a success, I will take that in my stride. If it is a success, I will be pleased about that but also accept that that is a result we have had to find out the hard way by conducting this trial. I wonder whether other members, particularly those who have opposed a trial, are quite so prepared not to take advantage of a failure of the trial to produce any evidence. A wry raising of the eyebrows by Ms Follett suggests to me that she may not be quite so prepared to eschew the result if it goes her way.
I was asked by Ms Tucker whether there would be any coincidence of the trial of safety cameras - she did not actually use the words "safety cameras", but I do - with the trading hours trial. I think the report suggests that we ought to have a trial which stretches over a longer period. I think it might suggest that 12 months is the appropriate period for the trial. We cannot do that because the Assembly has given us only 12 months from go to whoa and the time for this to operate has already begun to run. We are going to have to limit the trial to a total of seven months, from 1 September to 31 March next year. That is not as long as I would like, but I think it is necessary in the circumstances. It is not my intention to have that period coincide with the trial of the safety cameras.
Mr Moore: Surveillance cameras.
MR HUMPHRIES: I think when Ms Follett installed them they were safety cameras, so I will use the same terminology that no doubt she would have used if I had asked her about them at the time she put them in the Belconnen bus interchange. Nonetheless, I do not think we should have much overlap. It may be necessary to make sure we can have these two trials before the end of the life of this Assembly; given that we have been given these restrictions to operate them, there may be some small overlap. I would suggest that no more than one or two months' overlap would be the maximum. If possible, we will try not to have any overlap at all, but it may not be possible in the short time we have available to conduct these two major trials and properly evaluate them before decisions need to be made.
Mr Speaker, I also support the correction of the paucity of statistical information about the problems with crime, to which Ms Follett referred. This exercise in part is all about that, but it may not provide everything she referred to. The issue of non-alcoholic drinks being served is an interesting one which had not occurred to me, not being a frequenter of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .