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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3343 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (5.03), in reply: Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing this debate, let me thank members for their support. It was not exactly fulsome and overpowering, but at least it was enough to get the Bill through.

Mr Moore: That is what counts in the end.

MR HUMPHRIES: That is right. As long as there are nine votes there, I do not really care. To be entirely fair, I do not approach the compromise with absolutely overpowering enthusiasm either. I do not make any secret of the fact that I would probably have preferred a different result from this, but it is a compromise. I believe it is a compromise that will see some of the benefits that were obtained from the 4.00 am closing preserved, or perhaps all the benefits preserved but to a less powerful extent. For that reason, I think it is a worthwhile compromise for the Assembly to support in order to provide a platform on which to produce other results and take other measures in the coming years.

I suppose the Government has had a very simple theme throughout this whole exercise, and that is that there are very significant problems in our community relating to and stemming from the abuse of alcohol, and the responses we make to those problems must be multifaceted. They must be about education, they must be about a harm minimisation approach, they have to be about enforcement, they have to be about responsibility being accepted by those who are involved in the chain that leads to alcohol being made available, and they have to be about appropriate penalties for those who break the law. I think the community would have to say that this Government has accepted the multifaceted nature of that approach and adopted a range of measures to deal with that kind of problem.

The ALP's position is very clear. It is, "We do not think there is a problem out there. We see no reason to restrict trading hours in terms of alcohol sales. Go for your life if you want to sell at any time of the day or night to almost all and sundry who come through the door. If there is a problem out there, someone else can fix it". I do not accept that approach. I think the position is more complex than that. It deserves some consideration on other bases, and that is why the Government is supporting this proposal. I support the view of Ms Tucker that the Legal Affairs Committee has put forward some useful suggestions for dealing with others of those facets in attempting to resolve this problem. Ideas such as a liquor advisory board, better training, better powers for the police, and so on, are issues we need to examine very carefully, and indeed we will do that. But it is important that we put a range of weapons into our arsenal, and I think this is one of those.

I note Mr Moore's persistent comments about the Government ignoring the result of its own inquiry. I remind Mr Moore that there were earlier inquiries into this matter. Indeed, there was a select committee inquiry, which I think he chaired. I think it was the committee on sex, drugs and rock `n' roll - that is not quite accurate - that, among other things, recommended trading hours. It is quite possible for people of goodwill to look at these issues and to come up with different views about them, and I firmly believe, having spoken to a number of the stakeholders in this matter, that the hours at which trading takes place do affect the community's capacity to cope with the problem. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the house.

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