Page 2814 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DUBY: No, I do not even necessarily agree that it should happen. The fact is that this is a matter of - - -
Ms Follett: On a substantive motion, of course, I would.
MR DUBY: Yes, all right; I will accept that point, Chief Minister. But basically, as I said, to put up as a matter of public importance the great concern in the community over whether to ban or not to ban political advertising is, I put to you, an enormous yawn, because most people in the community have very little opinion on the matter. As a matter of fact, as I said originally, if you polled the community, most people would say, "What a good idea".
I think that is indicative of many of the arguments that I have raised in this place against the very suggestions that you make about our listening to what the people say. Nine times out of 10 - and I will probably regret saying this; I hope I am not quoted by political opponents - what the people think or know about an issue in the public domain has very little to do with the facts. Often things are whipped up by persons who, for whatever reason, think that they can gain short-term advantage by extrapolating, extending and appealing to supposed public opinion.
When the facts of the matter are explained to someone, almost invariably in life I have found that it is not a clear-cut issue. Normally there are arguments both for and against, and often your first gut reaction to a proposal has to be amended when you are properly apprised of the facts. I am not saying anything one way or the other about what the facts are or what attitude we should have towards political advertising on a national, State or even Territory level. But I would just like to say that in my opinion this is not a matter of public importance in the ACT, and I think it is to be regretted that matters that, in my view, verge on the political life of the nation as a whole are regarded as matters of local public importance.
Mr Stevenson: You may not have known, but we are part of Australia.
MR DUBY: Mr Stevenson has said that we are part of Australia. Does that mean, for example, that we can discuss as matters of public importance in the ACT matters concerning foreign affairs, the foreign trade balances and various things like that? Once again, I think that argument falls down. I think this is a nonsense debate, and actually I am amazed that I have spent 7 minutes discussing it. It quite surprises me how much nonsense I can talk about nonsense. Nevertheless, it is not a matter that should be raised as a matter of public importance in this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .