Page 764 - Week 03 - Thursday, 21 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MINISTER FOR URBAN SERVICES
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY QUESTION
QUESTION NO. 84
ACTION Buses - Advertising
Mr Humphries - asked the Minister for Urban Services:
(1) Who made the original decision to accept the Right to Life advertisements that were recently removed from ACTION buses.
(2) On what basis was this decision made.
(3) Who decided that this decision needed to be reviewed and why. .
(4) What advice was sought on the review of the decision and from whom.
(5) What was the nature of this advice.
(6) Will the Government and/or ACTION review the policy on advertising in light of the problems experienced with the Right to Life advertisements:
(7) How much money has ACTION lost as a result of its decision to remove the posters from ACTION buses.
(8) What other advertisements have been ruled out by ACTION because they are political.
(9) What other advertisements have been pulled off buses because a decision was made that they were political and after they were initially accepted.
Mr Connolly - the answer to the Members question is as follows:
(1) & (2) Australian Posters 3M which hold the contract for advertising in and on ACTION buses and the company decided to accept the Right to Life Association A.C.T. "Precious Feet" advertising campaign without reference to ACTION as required by the contract.
(3) ACTION reviewed the decision following complaints from the public concerning the advertisements.
(4) Advice was sought from the Chief Solicitor at the A.C.T. Government Solicitors Office concerning the appropriateness of the Right to Life advertisements under the advertising contract between ACTION and Australian Posters 3M.
764
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .