Page 1675 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I turn now to the further question about subclause 18(1). I have had discussion over the lunch hour about this, as you could imagine. I do want at all times in this Assembly to be accurate in what I say. There will be different interpretations of anything you get, as I have argued before; but I will acknowledge that it can be interpreted as you say. I am not sure that an amendment is necessary, but if Mr Stevenson or someone else moves an amendment it can go through. In respect of a line or two further on in this same clause, we are about to move another amendment that arose the other day as part of the normal and reasonable Assembly discussion.
MR MOORE (3.43): Mr Deputy Speaker, in this cognate debate I think it is important to look not only at the move to reduce the offence but also at the amendment that Mr Stevenson has indicated that he will put and that has been circulated in his name. It seems to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the notion that a person should not promote in the ACT a rodeo, even though that rodeo is going to take place in perhaps Bungendore, where we do know that rodeos take place, does put an unnecessary burden on people in the ACT in terms of the sorts of issues that Mr Stevenson raised about bumper stickers and T-shirts that people wear. In terms of big advertisers like the Canberra Times or the television stations, I have less sympathy because ethically I am inclined to say, "Well, if we feel that it is appropriate to ban them, then maybe that is a good move". However, I am not prepared to - - -
Mr Stevenson: You cannot take a television signal from another area.
MR MOORE: That is important, and I accept Mr Stevenson's interjection. There is also the fact that we must recognise that the Canberra Times is a regional paper, just as the television stations are regional stations. Perhaps that does put an unfair burden, without consultation, on the people of Queanbeyan and Bungendore, and so forth. With that in mind, I am quite prepared to support the very sensible amendment that Mr Stevenson has foreshadowed to remove the word "promote".
Since the indications are that that amendment will go through - this is the advantage of having a cognate debate - it seems to me that the penalty is now appropriate. The penalty now is not for a person who is promoting or conducting a rodeo. We are really now talking in subclause (1) about a person who conducts or takes part in a rodeo.
In subclause (2) we will be talking about a person who is promoting or conducting a game park. A game park, I find, by the definition in this Bill, quite objectionable, and I think that the penalty is appropriate. I do not expect that somebody who has a bumper sticker for a game park is going to have the same sort of penalty as somebody who runs a major advertisement - for example, a television company which runs a two-minute advertisement for a game park as it is defined here. A game park is defined as premises where animals are confined specifically so that they can be killed, for a fee, obviously. We are not talking of an abattoir or something along those lines. Under those circumstances, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am prepared to support the amendment of Mr Stevenson on this one, but I am not prepared to support a reduction in the penalty.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .