Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 3784 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

An example that members here should be familiar with is the letterboxing of leaflets from candidates during election campaigns. Every election time there are complaints from people who object to campaign material being put in their "no junk mail" letterbox, particularly if it is from a party or candidate they do not like.

The stakeholder response to the EPA discussion paper was predictably varied, although it would be fair to say that there was a general acceptance that junk mail could not be totally stopped. Interestingly, the discussion paper notes that the USA has the strongest controls on junk mail. Its postal law allows only properly stamped mail to be put in letterboxes. This does not eliminate unsolicited material but acts as a deterrent. The New South Wales EPA concluded that the implementation of legislation to control junk mail would be too complicated, particularly as the state government would need to rely on the range of local governments in New South Wales to enforce these controls.

There was, however, a general acceptance by stakeholders that people who do not wish to receive this material should not have it forced upon them, hence the importance of making junk mail distributors take notice of "no junk mail" signs. New South Wales favoured the maintenance of industry self-regulation but, as I indicated earlier, this does not eliminate the problems of junk mail being placed where it is not wanted.

The ACT does not have the problem of New South Wales in having two different levels of government. The nature of our territory government allows us to have a more simplified approach to regulation. I therefore believe that my legislation is warranted and workable. It can be compared with the Legislative Assembly's action in the past to ban advertising material from being placed under car windscreen wipers because of its unsolicited and wasteful nature.

My bill primarily sets up a new offence if a person deposits unsolicited advertising material in a mail or newspaper receptacle where there is an easily read sign to the effect that unsolicited advertising mail is not to be deposited there. The penalty is similar to the penalties that apply to littering offences. Not only the person who put the junk mail in the wrong letterbox would be liable but also the company that employed or commissioned them, unless they could demonstrate that they took reasonable action to stop the law from being broken-for example, by having a clear company policy that junk mail was not to be distributed in "no junk mail" letterboxes.

The bill also clearly defines junk mail and provides a range of exclusions, such as public notices from government agencies, charities and community associations, and election campaign material. Some people may disagree with my exclusions. However, in living in a democracy we have both rights and obligations. I think the distribution of information about opportunities to be involved in community-building activities and the political process is very important and not something that people can simply opt out of.

The bill also contains some associated offences to prevent junk mail distributors from getting around the primary offence. For example, there is a new offence of placing junk mail on premises other than in a letterbox. So junk mail cannot be just left on the doorstep or in a driveway.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .