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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2267 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

We now have the final evaluation of the trial. Even though the consultants have stated, in their executive summary, that they do not think the imposed closing time made a significant difference to harm related to alcohol use, I believe that the issues raised by this whole debate are complex and serious. In this consultants report, less measurable accounts of how 4.00 am closing has produced some benefit - through things like a change of consciousness about drinking, greater amenity for other users of the city and Manuka, and the interface between the night people and the day people - have been glimpsed. They have gained strength. The results of this particular trial have been complicated by other factors, such as police practices changing just before the trial began - which were quite significant changes - and changing social conditions in Canberra, particularly increased unemployment. There are a lot of complicating factors in this.

I cannot accept Mr Wood's argument that, because this report did not say, "Go ahead", we should therefore blindly obey and not think past that; that we should just say, "We said, `Let us have a report'. If the report says, `Go ahead', we will; but, if the report says, `Don't', we will not". It seems to me that the report itself was inconclusive and it raised issues which need to be considered. I think it is a bit of a cop-out to just say, "This report was not conclusively saying, `Definitely go ahead'; therefore we will not". We have to be more thoughtful and we have to look at this more comprehensively.

I know that there are issues about this Government getting consultants and getting reports and then ignoring them. In particular, there has been debate today about the Assembly's committee system being ignored by the Government. I support those concerns about the Assembly's committees. I think it is a different issue, however, from getting a consultants report like this, which, like all the reports that have been done on this issue, is pretty inconclusive. Some reports have been more definite. The one in Perth that Mr Humphries gave me, which has been carried out recently, was more conclusive. It was actually more in favour of a reduction of trading hours and a definite time for closing. As I said, there is a great variety. I do not think it is enough to just say, "The report said this. Therefore, you should do that".

I have read a number of the reports and reviews on the issue. There are common findings, definitely. With extended trading hours, there has been a corresponding shift in the timing of serious alcohol-related incidents, including drink-driving offences. What was interesting about this report was that we actually saw a decrease in drink-driving offences. Once again, it is not clear why; but, for heaven's sake, I think we should be glad that there has been a drop in that. That, in itself, makes me feel that I want to stop and think pretty carefully about it. If there is even a possibility that this has had some impact, it is worth considering. However, it has not been my overriding impression that we need to stick with the 4.00 am closing to deal with the issues that have been raised by this whole debate. Members are well aware of that.

Also, in all the reports, there is evidence that an increase in overall alcohol consumption has a corresponding increase in alcohol-related violence. This has come out from all the reports. Public opinion surveys have also indicated that the majority of opinion is in favour of alcohol control policies. Alcohol control policies may not necessarily be 4.00 am closing or 2.00 am closing, but they are in favour of government taking control. In New South Wales, 70 per cent of respondents to a study put in place there were opposed to the relaxation of trading which was introduced by their Government.

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