Page 1651 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If this city does not want circuses and people prefer to go to Queanbeyan to the circus, surely the Canberra Times should be able to run an advertisement. If that is called promoting, that fine of $10,000 is absolutely out of this world. I ask members to consider that fact, because "promote", once again, is not defined. Does it include advertising? Does a billboard promote or enhance? We believe that those fines are definitely incorrect.
We have moved that subclause 18(1) be omitted. It states:
A person shall not promote, conduct or take part in a rodeo.
In a further amendment, we will seek to include rodeos with circuses, where the circus needs a permit. We are not against the rodeos requiring a permit.
MR CORNWELL (12.18): Madam Speaker, I endorse what my colleague Mr Westende said. The clause says, "A person shall not promote ...". As Mr Westende said, "promote" has not been defined.
Mr Connolly: Come in, spinner. Dig yourself deeper. Keep going.
MR CORNWELL: It has not been defined, Mr Connolly. You might like to explain to us what you think it means, because it is not in the legislation. As Mr Westende said, it could be a television advertisement for something in Queanbeyan; it could be an advertisement in the Canberra Times. It could be somebody putting up a billboard or a hoarding - perhaps one of those small advertisements we saw recently for the circus - for a rodeo that is taking place outside the Territory.
I will await your answer; but I would be delighted to hear how you maintain that this is not a promotion and why, even if it is a promotion, it should be prevented and prohibited in the ACT when the activity is not taking place here.
Mr Wood: They are really stretching it. They have to try to stretch this thing out.
MR CORNWELL: No, seriously. If we are to be prevented from advertising in the ACT a rodeo that is taking place in Queanbeyan, we are not just looking at restraint of trade, I suggest to you; we are looking at censorship. You might like to clarify it.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.20): The Liberal Party, which is totally opposed to all censorship, seems to want some answer to Mr Cornwell's last comment. I am only answering a point Mr Westende was making, which was so wrong, so totally incorrect, that it needs an answer. It was a play to the Canberra Times in that he was saying that the Canberra Times promoting a circus could be prosecuted under this legislation because a circus can be a game park. Mr Westende, it cannot. A game park is, firstly, where animals are confined, and yes, a circus fits that; and - not or - secondly, where the taking or killing of those animals as a sport or recreation is permitted.
We have some criticisms of circuses, but I have never heard of a circus where the taking or killing of animals comes as part of the admission price. So, that silly line that this clause would mean that the Canberra Times would be prosecuted if it advertised a circus in Queanbeyan is just farcical. It demonstrates the depth to which the Liberal Party is sinking to keep debate going.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .