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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 616 ..

Mr Moore: We are saying we need time.

MS TUCKER: We have had time to consult on it - I do not know why you have not - and we have fewer members, by the way, so we have more work to do. The definition of sexually explicit entertainment that is proposed in this legislation includes entertainment in the course of which a person displays genitalia or that includes sexual intercourse. This would cover circumstances where such activities occurred in the course of tabletop dancing, stage performance, bar service, table service and so on. My office has been informed that this definition will cover the venue in Civic that has already opened.

We also have some concern, as Mr Moore has, about the Minister being able to prescribe other forms of sexually explicit entertainment. I have discussed these concerns with the Minister. I was concerned that perhaps these powers were too broad, but I am reassured by the fact - and the Minister will make a statement to this effect - that any form of entertainment or performance that is prescribed will be prescribed in a disallowable regulation. Mr Humphries has assured me that, if he does prescribe any other activity, he will make sure that it is drawn to the attention of other members in a very public way by tabling a statement in the Assembly. Mr Moore thinks people will start their business and then have to stop. I think it must be clearly understood by people who wish to start a business of this nature that this is the process and that it would be unwise of them to start that business until they know that it is accepted or not accepted by the Assembly, by the decision of the Minister. I am happy to accept this, and I will not be moving the first amendment circulated in my name.

The second issue that is raised in this legislation is about extending the time period for the trial of restricted trading hours for the sale of liquor. The Greens actually opposed the proposed trial in the first place. I did not think there had been very much thought put into the proposal, and I was surprised that the experience of other jurisdictions was not looked at in detail, although there was some kind of literature search done. I read that in detail, and I see that Mr Humphries has acknowledged that it was ambivalent at best whether regulation of trading hours made any impact on the violence that occurred around venues at closing time.

The Assembly agreed that the legislation would proceed, that there would be a sunset clause, and I agreed to make the period 12 months so that the trial would include the summer months. Now the Minister is asking for an extension of the trial period so that the evaluation can be considered by the Government and other members of this place, and I believe that is fair enough. I have not accepted that it should go to September, however. Mr Humphries has circulated an amendment which will take it to June. That is only two more months when places would be able to continue to trade as they are now, until the Assembly and the Government have had time to consider the consultant's report and evaluation on whether this has made any difference to the violence in Civic.

MR OSBORNE (6.24): I would like to clarify a couple of points raised by my furry-faced colleague over here, Mr Moore. The first is on the issue of being hasty. Who was in a mad rush last week to get his euthanasia Bill debated this week and passed? Who was hasty about that? Not me. You, Mr Moore. I would like to comment on the issue of being a moral guardian. He calls us moral guardians because we do not think it is

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