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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2270 ..

MR MOORE: Mainly over police resources - and that, therefore, we should continue the three-month extension. She also talked about - and I will come to it - the perception of the improved amenity; the perception, not the amenity. I will take that first. It is quite clear, Ms Tucker, that the report said that there was a perception among some people that there was a reduction in crime; there was a perception among some people that there was an improvement in amenity. But that was not verified by the general findings of the report.

But what the report said - and on this part I agree wholeheartedly with you - was that there were some advantages in the rearrangement of police resources. However, we can get that same advantage in the rearrangement of police resources through a whole series of methods. We would get the same advantage in the rearrangement of police resources by closing down every establishment, other than in a particular area. So, that would provide exactly the same logic. I think there is a fallacy in the logic. It is the same fallacy, by the way, that Mr Humphries used when he introduced the legislation. He said:

Mr Speaker, while we accept that the reported incidence of crime and antisocial behaviour did not change significantly during the trial period, a number of points emerged from the trial that are worth noting: Seventy-five per cent of residents surveyed supported 4.00 am closing; 24 per cent of residents believed that 4.00 am closing reduced crime ...

So, now the arguments put by our Attorney-General, for heaven's sake, are that, if the perception out there is that there is a reduction in crime, that is a good enough reason for us to go ahead and take this kind of action. That is an appalling piece of logic. What it says is that, provided we can whip up a certain perception amongst people, we should make policy decisions based on that perception. That is what I am concerned about in terms of the logic.

The reality is - and anybody can see it here - that there will be an extension of three months to this area. There is actually some logic behind that. I disagree with it, but I will wear it. The logic is that we want to get these other important issues into place. The measures that Ms Tucker has just tabled are indeed important harm minimisation methods in dealing with alcohol. I think that most people, if they wanted to argue against those, would have a difficulty in arguing against them, because they are the sorts of methods that we should have been talking about in the first place, instead of this business of chasing a closure time.

I had always opposed the 4.00 am closure. I agreed that a trial would be appropriate so that we could actually look at the results of the trial and see whether 4.00 am closing, or 3.00 am closing, or whatever it was, would make any difference and enough of a difference to then give us a reason to say, "Yes, we will interfere with a business. Yes, we will interfere with what people do in their leisure time". You have to have a good reason for doing those things, and you have to have very solid outcomes to show that it is an appropriate thing to do. Just because it happens to be more convenient for the way the police run their roster is not a good enough reason to take action.

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