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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3341 ..

MS TUCKER (4.55): The Greens will be supporting this Bill. This has been an interesting process, dealing with the issues around alcohol abuse in the community. It seems to me that this is a quite good result, because the 5.00 am closing time was one that was agreed to by not all stakeholders but some quite significant ones, including the police and the hotels, who are not usually in agreement with each other.

I think it is important to accept that this common ground has been found and to acknowledge it - and that is why we are supporting it. From this point, where I hope that most people will believe to some degree their concerns have been addressed, we can move on together to address the other issues around alcohol abuse. Obviously, it is not just about what time liquor outlets close. People are abusing alcohol all through the day and all through the night. It is not just about 4.00 am or 5.00 am. The question of 4.00 am or 5.00 am is about calling a stop to the night, so that the amenity of people who live near liquor outlets is acknowledged and also so that the interface between day and night can be made easier. With no closing time and also no real accountability in terms of serving practices, there were people around the streets who were very inebriated when other people were going to work. Also, broken glass, vomit and so on were quite evident in certain areas. Obviously, that is not particularly desirable. So, the 5.00 am closing is going to address those concerns.

But what we have to see - and I would like Minister Humphries to state this again for the record - is that the ideas that came out of the liquor summit and the proposals that came out of the Legal Affairs Committee, which was looking at these issues and which tabled its report this week, are picked up in that as well. That means that we see the development of some kind of alcohol advisory board, involving all the stakeholders and including a public health person of some kind; and that we see in place a licensing system which is much tighter and which really brings in accountability in terms of how staff are trained in responsible serving practices. Each year there should be some kind of assessment of how licensees are meeting their responsibilities in this area. There are also issues concerning the other liquor outlets that are not actually licensed premises - bottle shops and so on. That was raised at that alcohol summit as well, I remember. I would really like to see the Government address what can be done there to make the serving practices more responsible as well. So, I think it has actually been a quite good process, even though it was long and drawn out. I hope that we can now work towards finding longer-term solutions for the issues of alcohol abuse.

MR MOORE (4.59): Ms Tucker describes it as a good process, but the reality is that it has been a very poor process that has led to this piece of legislation. I think Mr Wood has adequately described that: There was a report, a trial and an assessment, and the assessment said, "No, do not proceed with a closing time. The advantages of that are outweighed by the disadvantages". It recognised some advantages, and there must have been advantages, otherwise the conclusions would have been obvious. We have a government that, having set in place a trial, takes the results and then ignores them. That is not a good process. If we run a trial like that, we should take the results seriously, and they have not been taken seriously. We have come to the conclusion Mr Humphries and Mr Osborne wanted from the beginning, bar perhaps an hour either way.

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