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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2269 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Speaker, in an attempt to address the real issue that is before us today, the Greens came up with a series of proposals, the major objective of which was to put in place more accountability in the liquor industry and a greater focus on harm minimisation and improved late-night transport, as well as the formation of an alcohol advisory group, which would include police, hotels, clubs, community, liquor licensing and possibly, as Mr Moore suggested, an academic who had expertise in population health. Yesterday, at the round table meeting, we discussed some of these issues. I am very pleased that members have been prepared to meet and discuss this issue in a cooperative manner, and for that I thank members here tonight.

I am sorry that Mr Wood attended for only a short while, and I am a bit disappointed in his response, because I believe that my supporting or asking for a three months' extension of 4.00 am closing is actually quite appropriate and fits in with the strategy that we discussed at the round table yesterday. I think there is a good lever in that. We need to keep 4.00 am closing because it is giving some comfort to members of the community who believe that it was helping. It is quite possible that it did help, and I am convinced of that in certain areas. In fact, it has already been discussed quite a lot in the media that there were advantages and that police resources were freed up. While we have difficulties, while we have irresponsible serving, while we have people who have drunk too much, it is very useful to have more police resources freed up in those peak hours, because this is about safety in Civic or Manuka. So, you cannot deny that there is some use in that.

In relation to the interface between day and night, it has been quite clear from people who have spoken to us that it has made a difference to some people. I think it is quite reasonable to ask that that three-month period be set so that we can move together, cooperatively, with all the stakeholders to find ways of addressing the issues, so that we are not just looking at 4.00 am but we are looking at the whole evening and we are looking at processes which will ensure that there will not be such a necessity for actually resorting to a closing hour.

Hopefully, if these measures are put in place and they work, there will not be the pressure to have a 4.00 am closing, or even a 2.00 am closing, or any closing, because this thing will be handled responsibly. Obviously, it is never going to be perfect; but I think we could have a vast improvement in the situation. If that happened, then I think the pressure for the closing principle would be off, which obviously some members in this place are not at all comfortable with. It sounds to me like a win-win situation. I have circulated the principles that we agreed on in the round table. I would like to table them now so that they are on the record.

Leave granted.

MR MOORE (8.59): Mr Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the arguments that were put by Ms Tucker as to why we should continue the closing for another three months. Some of them I consider quite valid; most of them I consider entirely invalid. I believe that the main thrust of her logic was that there were some advantages; that those advantages were primarily over police resources - - -

Ms Tucker: And amenity.

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