Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2274 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
Page 2, line 3, clause 3, omit the clause, substitute the following clause:
"Amendment of Liquor (Amendment) Act 1996
3. Section 8 of the Liquor (Amendment) Act 1996 is amended by omitting `30 June 1997' and substituting `30 September 1997'.".
Page 2, lines 5 to 25, clauses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, omit the clauses.
Page 1, title, omit the title, substitute the following title:
"An Act to amend the Liquor (Amendment) Act 1996".
Mr Speaker, the effect of these amendments is to put in place the agreement that was reached at the round table referred to, to extend the trading hours restriction until 30 September this year - an extension of three months. It has been timed in that way, Mr Speaker, to allow discussions to take place, including with licensees, between now and the next sittings in August; for legislation, if necessary, to be tabled in August to deal with any consequences of those agreements; for them to be debated in September; and for them to be operational before the end of September. Mr Speaker, I am proposing that there be a liquor summit, where interested parties - parties in the industry, police, health professionals perhaps, and others with an interest in finding resolution of these issues - will sit down together and work through some of the issues. I think it is appropriate to add some traction to that process by having these 4.00 am restrictions remaining in place until then. Mr Speaker, I am confident that that environment will be one which will lead to at least some progress on finding ways of being able to deal better with this serious problem in our community.
MR MOORE (9.16): In speaking to these amendments, Mr Speaker, I want to begin by drawing to the attention of anybody who is reading this Hansard the evidence that Mr Humphries has just tabled, in terms of the advantages of changed trading hours. I think that anybody who is actually researching this, or looking at it, should go to the initial literature search of Messrs Biles and Walker, who carried out the investigation. That literature search says, "Yes, there is evidence that way; but there is also evidence the other way; and, at best, the results are equivocal". So, by no means should you just take one side in this debate and say that it provides a solution or that a change in trading hours provides the sort of evidence required.
What has become clear through this whole debate is that there just is no substantive evidence that has come out of this trial to say that there is a major benefit in changing to 4.00 am closing. However, what it has done, and what happens with this amendment, is that we now have a situation where the community and this Assembly are saying, "Yes, we are ready to consider other methods of reducing the harm and ensuring that responsibility is placed fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those who are involved in the industry, as far as serving goes, and on individuals in other sections". So, Mr Speaker, although there are no definitive results coming from the trial itself, there may well be an advantage in this process, which probably is the path we should have gone down in the first place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .