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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1739 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

If Mr Osborne could come back here and show some major fault in the way this trial was conducted, some major fault in the way it has been interpreted, or some major misinterpretation of the statistics, I would say, "Okay, the report is inadequate". Then we could make a decision on a series of other things. We would take that into account. But that has not happened. We have not seen anybody do that. We have not seen anybody do that at all, and I would be very interested to hear other members say so.

There is no question that the conclusions in the report give a certain amount of room for movement because the report basically says there are some negative results and there are some positive results, leaving some room for interpretation by members. It may well be that some members have no problem about cutting out business and jobs in the ACT even though the supposed benefits of 4.00 am closing simply have not been demonstrated. There are some small administrative benefits for police officers. Okay, I accept that. Does that outweigh the loss of jobs and the loss of business in this Territory at a time when we are having such great difficulty in getting jobs? As far as I am concerned, it certainly does not. Mr Speaker, section after section of this report clearly illustrates that there are no great benefits to improving community wellbeing and community safety by 4.00 am closing. There are none.

That being the case, how can we have a situation where this Government still has not removed the restrictions it has put on business - particularly a Liberal government? Each and every one of its members has come into this house and before committees and said again and again, "Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs". Is their "Jobs, jobs, jobs" just simply rhetoric, or are they serious about it? You are now in a position where you have to deal with a very serious issue. The serious issue is that there has been no demonstrated reduction in harm to the community through this trial - a long, carefully conducted trial - other than a significant impost on business and a major reduction in jobs in the Territory.

Mr Humphries: A drink-driving reduction, too.

MR MOORE: Is that cost enough? Mr Humphries interjects about drink-driving. The drink-driving issue is one that we have to be very careful of. I agree there is an issue that comes out of this report as far as drink-driving goes. We have to ask ourselves questions in the light of the new legislation that is before the Assembly at this minute. Debate on it was adjourned as of yesterday. That legislation has some difficulties, although there is an appropriate new structure. What impact will flow through this as well? Mr Speaker, there are many things changing on the issues that we are dealing with; but this report indicates very clearly that members ought to be basing their decisions on solid, sensible research; and anybody who is basing their decision on solid, sensible research would be saying, "Why has not the Government put an end to this 4.00 am closing restriction?".

Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.

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