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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 611 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

There is no further reason to have the liquor outlets shut at 4.00 am in order to collect data. Now the work has to be written up and assessed, printed out and provided to us. There is no reason, then, why the trial should not cease, as we were told it would. We do not need those premises open in order to complete the report.

Mr Humphries, in his letter to me a month ago, when he put the matter in writing, argued for continuity. He seemed to think we should not go back, as he had indicated, to the 24-hour opening, but for the purpose of continuity we should maintain the 4.00 am closure so that things would proceed smoothly after that. That, of course, presupposes that the trial will recommend 4.00 am closing. We do not know that. We do not know what the trial will recommend. The trial may recommend 24-hour opening. The trial may recommend some other hour of closure. When Mr Osborne moved the original piece of legislation, he said, "It is not a trial about time", and he did not specify particularly 4.00 am. He would prefer other times.

We do not know what the report will bring down, and I think that to argue for continuity is to argue on no grounds at all. If we go back to 24-hour trading from the end of the trial, it may be that that will be the period that will be recommended out of the report, and continuity would then be provided automatically. So there is no argument there at all for continuity. I repeat quite clearly that we do not know what the report will say, so we cannot talk about continuity. We should not presuppose what the report will tell us. This is simply a case where a trial was agreed, the period was established, the trial is over, for all intents and purposes, out there in the streets, and we should return, as per the commitment, to the former trading hours. The matter, I believe, is as simple as that.

In respect of tabletop dancing, my attitude is that I do not like it. It seems quite objectionable to me; I would find it undesirable and probably unpleasant. But that is my view. Whether it should be banned out to Fyshwick I do not know. Whether it should be banned altogether, as a better option, I would like to consider further. What is it? Is it a moral issue? I hesitate to use that word. It can come into that area somewhere. It is not, therefore, anywhere near as simple as it may seem, to simply say, "Send it out to Fyshwick". It is tied up with issues of prostitution, of individual liberty, of right of employment or of censorship. It has even been expressed to me as an issue of artistic endeavour. It has been promoted here by the Minister in his statements as being an issue of protection of the Civic area of the community. That is how it has come to me. But there are a whole lot of other issues involved. I do not, at this stage, have the answers to those issues. This Bill was tabled only a week ago today. To date, I have had some correspondence on the matter, I have spoken to one of the partners in the firm, although I have not been there, and I have spoken to the union concerned, who are likely to be acting on behalf of one of the dancers.

I need further time to examine this issue. To the best of my knowledge, as it has been described to me, I am not much impressed with the idea of tabletop dancing. Courtesy of Mr Humphries, I had a brief on the matter of dancers getting up on top of the table and dancing and displaying absolutely everything they have in so doing.

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