Page 2850 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Employees of premises attempt to manage the queues, but there are still incidents of drunken and hooligan behaviour by some patrons waiting to get into the premises.
Mr Dawson then goes on to say:
Incidents of drunkenness and hooliganism, however, were a problem within the Civic area prior to the introduction of the legislation, and therefore cannot, with any certainty, be directly attributable to the legislation.
Obviously, Mr Connolly, it would be a lot easier if you restricted the number of people in these premises to 10. With the way you have been cutting the police budget over the years, that is probably something the police could handle quite easily. The way you have been cutting their powers, too, that is something they could quite easily handle, because it might be more of a fair fight there now.
However, the issue of public safety is completely different from this particular issue. Certainly, it is easier for police to handle smaller numbers of people, but there are other ways of doing that. To accuse this Opposition of going against something the police - - -
Mr Connolly: That is what you are doing, Bill.
MR STEFANIAK: We might be, but there are other ways of doing it. This Opposition - and when it was the Government beforehand in the First Assembly and the Opposition before that - have consistently backed and pushed any sensible measures to enable the Australian Federal Police in the ACT to do their job properly, because basically we are quite different from you in that we actually trust them to use their discretion properly, which is something you people have had huge problems doing - trusting the police actually to get on and do their job. So, when you talk about "Bah, humbug!" on this issue, when you bring in the question of police and police control in these premises, it is just that: Absolute humbug coming from a government that has absolutely no credibility in that particular area.
MS SZUTY (9.45): I will be brief in rising a second time to talk to Mrs Carnell's amendments. I have before me a copy of advice from Assistant Commissioner Peter Dawson of the Australian Federal Police, and I notice that the brief on occupancy loading levels is:
The impact of recent amendments to the Liquor Act 1975, concerning occupancy loading levels, on police services.
I think that is interesting and relevant to the debate we are having on these amendments today. I think my colleague Mr Moore expressed the situation very cleverly, in that we are talking about two issues here - one of public order and one of public safety. I think there is no question that Assistant Commissioner Peter Dawson has approached this particular issue from the point of view of occupancy loading levels as they relate to police services.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .