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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2271 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the only reason that I can see left now for retaining 4.00 am closing for three months is that a message is clearly there for licensees, so that they are keen and enthusiastic to adopt the harm minimisation measures that Ms Tucker has put out. That part I agree with and that part I will accept. But I will make it very clear that, when the time comes at the end of the three months, I am not interested in any further extensions. The process that we have gone through is that originally there was the Liquor Act, and then the Liquor (Amendment) Act 1996 to limit the closing time up to 19 April. Then the Liquor (Amendment) Act 1997 extends it to 30 June. Now we have the Liquor (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1997, with its amendments, extending it until September, without proof.

It was logical to run a trial; but it is only ever logical to run a trial if we are going to look seriously at the outcomes of it; otherwise trials are a waste of time and a waste of money. Mr Speaker, the thing that concerns me most of all is that we will get into a frame of mind where we are going to say, "Yes, we will run trials", and we will not look at the outcomes. I am sure that if members here believed that I had that attitude to the most talked about of all the trials since the beginning of the ACT Assembly, the heroin trial - the attitude that I would ignore the outcomes of that and just want to continue the policy - they would have a very different view. But, indeed, as I have discussed with each and every member here at different times, I certainly do not have that attitude. If, at any point in it, the outcomes are an increase in harm, then as far as I am concerned it will need to be aborted and we will need to go and look for other methods and work on those.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me that what may come out of this trial process and the round table discussion is some very good broad outcomes of how we should handle this particular situation to continue the reduction of harm associated with the use of alcohol. Probably what we should have done was put our efforts into that in the first place and ask the broad general question, "How can we go about taking extra steps to reduce harm associated with the use of alcohol?", rather than going for these very populist, easy-style solutions. Almost invariably, when we are talking about harm associated with drugs, populist, easy solutions simply do not work and they wind up causing many more problems than they solve. Mr Speaker, I am prepared to wear this last bit of extension very reluctantly. I must say that, if I thought I had the numbers, I would probably oppose it. But, certainly, I will be working hard to ensure that it does not extend beyond this three-month period. That is it. That is how the shutter should come down.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (9.07), in reply: The Government thanks those members who have been prepared to support the legislation before this place and indicates that we believe that it is appropriate to extend the operation of 4.00 am cessation of trading in alcohol beyond the present expiry date, which is next Monday.

Mr Wood: Are you going to extend it again after that?

MR HUMPHRIES: If you want us to extend it, Mr Wood, we will think about it; but for the time being - - -

Mr Wood: I am not proposing that at all.

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