Page 1676 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (3.46): I think that the Minister has indicated that what he said this morning about promotion is probably not true. He has not been very forthright about it.
Mr Connolly: It is not a question of what is true and what is not true. We can have two interpretations and it is a question of which one is better on balance. It is quite improper to say "untrue".
MR HUMPHRIES: No, I think it goes further. I am sorry; as I said this morning, there are some things which are subject to shades of grey and some things which are not. To say that, if you promote an activity in the ACT which is illegal in the ACT under that clause, it would not be an offence under this clause is not a matter of debate as far as I am concerned. Any adviser who would tell the Minister that maybe that could be interpreted to mean that you would be able to legally promote activities in the ACT which were prohibited by this clause deserves to be sacked. They are very poor advisers if that is the advice that they gave. No, Mr Deputy Speaker; quite clearly this clause, as it stands, would make it illegal for a person to promote a rodeo in the ACT even if it were a rodeo in New South Wales which is perfectly legal.
I think the Minister, after hurling abuse across the chamber this morning, has acknowledged that maybe we have a point, and I think he is taking that point. I think it is worth making the additional point that we have here a piece of legislation which does have these sorts of points validly made about it. There might be shades of grey. Maybe you could say this and maybe you could say that. But, if you have legislation like that and it really has the potential to be interpreted in different ways by a court, you do not put it out to the community and expect that the courts will somehow sort it out in the wash. You do not wave your hand away like that and pretend that it is going to be sorted out.
Mr Berry: Sit down.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, Mr Berry; we are raising good points about the legislation, and we will find some more, too, before this is out, I reckon. You will again be having to make compromise amendments at the last minute to fix up your mistakes. Let us be clear; the harder you look at this, the more you find, and I am not convinced that we have got anywhere near the bottom of this particular barrel as yet. In that light, I think it is, again, extremely unfortunate, sad in the extreme, that we are getting ourselves into this sort of pickle over legislation which ought not to be before the Assembly at this point.
I maintain that a person who takes part in a rodeo ought not to be subjected to a fine of that magnitude or imprisonment for one year. It is an activity which, only a few kilometres away, is perfectly legal. To cross the border and find not just a change in the law but such a dramatic change in the law is really quite extraordinary. I cannot think of any parallel situations around the country. For example, it might be an offence in one jurisdiction in this country to sell kangaroo meat, and in another jurisdiction not an offence to sell kangaroo meat; but you probably will not find a term of imprisonment attaching to one offence and that in the next jurisdiction there is no offence at all constituted by that Act.
Clearly, we have to think about how this fits in with the overall scheme of things, and that has not been done. It occurred to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to think about all sorts of permutations with this matter. I have to wonder just what constitutes a rodeo. A rodeo is not defined in the Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .