Page 4586 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
some time in 1996. I think it is early 1996. Both of those sponsorships occur outside the Territory - they would not be able to occur within the Territory - and the cricket game has a long history here. Of course, the Raiders' relationship with the ACT is a very important one as well.
In relation to the New South Wales Rugby League, not many people would forget the brawl about what advertising would or would not be there. At the end of the day they agreed that I could have some anti-smoking advertising on the ground, provided that they could show their sponsors' products on television days. Roughly the same applies in relation to the Australian Cricket Board's presentation of the Prime Minister's XI game. On the day of that game, whilst there is tobacco advertising, there is anti-smoking advertising on the ground as well. Without bringing the game undone, which may well have been the risk had we refused that particular advertising, we have proceeded down a path which has resulted in an anti-smoking message and some sponsorship from the Health Promotion Fund. The same thing is applied at the Bruce Stadium.
In relation to Mrs Carnell's concerns about what Canberra ASH have said and what they have not said, and what other people have said and what they have not said, there will be a review of this legislation. I think it will happen some time next year. It will have to be, will it not, because we are running out of time this year? This matter was seen to be particularly pressing because we had a situation where, if somebody came into town with, say, a furniture van with tobacco advertising all over it and they wished to park it legally in places around the city, there was not much I could do to prevent them from doing so for 30 days. There was not much I could do for 30 days. It was thought at this stage that we could quite fairly bring it down to two days. In cases where there might be a requirement for some disassembly of some advertising that was inadvertently put together, it could have been one day, but two days was felt to be about right. That might prove to be different in due course.
I go back to the review of the legislation. I think it was the Alliance Government that originally put forward this legislation. People will recall that there was a bit of argy-bargy between Mr Humphries and me as to who should or who should not put forward the legislation, but it went forward under Mr Humphries and I was very proud to support it. We had behind us a couple of hundred years of tobacco consumption in this country, and you really have to take the community with you. So the review process is a quite natural outcome after some years of experience with the Bill. People have been able to get a feel for its shortcomings. You can rest assured, Mrs Carnell, that the appropriate consultation process will occur with a view to ensuring that - - -
Mrs Carnell: Unlike this time.
MR BERRY: I do not really care about people who advertise tobacco products. They are not people I list as the great friends of ACT Health.
Mrs Carnell: You mean the Chamber of Commerce.
MR BERRY: If they advertise tobacco products I do not have a great deal of sympathy for them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .