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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (17 February) . . Page.. 251 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

machines outside licensed clubs and a requirement to distribute the proceeds of poker machines more broadly through the community, would find it very hard to accept an amendment to include clubs. That is the logical position you are in.

We have presented evidence in this place from the Liquor Licensing Board inspectors that they have seen needles on licensed premises of the kind covered by the manual. I have not seen any evidence of any use in licensed clubs in the ACT. If there is a public health issue, should we not be addressing it in respect of those premises?

One other argument put forward by Mr Rugendyke was that licensees have complained that there had been no examination of the alternative of ultraviolet lights. He said that the Government should be mandating ultraviolet lights. That is an interesting argument. First of all, there is no problem with any establishment in the ACT installing ultraviolet lights right now if they wish to do that. But if they believe that we could go down the path of having ultraviolet lights, would that not also be a signal that we were concerned about intravenous drug use on those premises? Would it not equally suffer the argument that we are encouraging drug use by installing devices on those premises? I cannot see that we would do any better by having those sorts of facilities there. In any case, the licensees are perfectly entitled to put them there right now if they want to.

I expect that Mr Stanhope will tell us that we have to do further research on the incidence of needles in licensed premises versus clubs.

Mr Stanhope: Not further. Some research would do.

MR HUMPHRIES: Okay, I understand the argument. Superficially, it is a good argument. But before Mr Stanhope gets up and puts that argument, there is a question he needs to answer in respect of this. How do you do that research? Do you survey clubs and licensees? I hope you are listening, Mr Stanhope, because this is a question you need to answer rather than burying yourself in some make-believe conversation with Mr Quinlan. You need to ask yourself how you conduct that research. How do you find out what is on those premises? I can tell you right now that licensees of any description are going to say, "No, we do not have drugs on our premises", just as the Australian Hotels Association has told us there are no drugs on their premises, except when it comes to ecstasy. They are going to tell us that they do not have the problem, because to do so would be bad for business. You cannot survey the owners and say, "Do you have drugs on your premises?". They are going to say no, obviously, are they not, Mr Stanhope?

So how do you do it? Do you send plain-clothes inspectors continuously through these premises to see who is on the premises and to see what drugs or what needles they can find on the premises?

Mr Stanhope: You already do that, I hope.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, you do not do it. It simply is not likely that research of that kind is going to significantly advance the argument about the balance of use in clubs and nightclubs and taverns in this town.

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