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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Tuesday, 3 August 2004) . . Page.. 3372 ..

an intent by the child to put that notice in that letterbox. So there are ongoing questions there.

In that sense, why are we allowing politicians and sitting members of parliament the right to put something in a “No junk mail” letterbox when we are denying or not affording the same rights to some members of the community who are trying to, I guess, promote their business or find their missing dog?

I am generally supportive of the idea that Ms Tucker is getting at. If we have “No junk mail” stickers there should be a way of actually enforcing what the owner is trying to get out. They do not want this information coming into their letterbox. I think, even in my experience, those people who have “No junk mail” stickers consider that any notices coming from the territory, documents from charitable organisations or electoral matter are still junk mail in their eyes. They do not want anything but stuff that is addressed to them.

Whilst I support the intention of what Ms Tucker is trying to do in trying to work through a way of making sure that we actually can enforce people’s wishes to not receive junk mail, I still have a few questions about how it will actually be implemented in relation to the broader issues I have raised today. One way, of course, to do that is to get the minister to issue regulations to exempt individuals with serious community concerns that they are trying to advertise. That is a possible solution. There are ways to work around this and still achieve the intention.

Yes, there are some questions with this law that need to be asked if we are to achieve the intention that I think we can see is trying to be reached here, and that is to make sure that we do not have unsolicited advertising material being put in “No junk mail” letterboxes.

MR CORNWELL (5.31): The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. Ms Tucker, in her speech, indicates, of course, that a significant proportion of the community does not like junk mail. In fact, I am of the view that the number of “No junks” is increasing. I tend to put that down to the increasing affluence of this city, thanks, of course, to the Howard Liberal government. But never mind. The increasing affluence seems to be a factor in people, to put it bluntly, who are poor or do not have a great deal of money, not really being able to afford to give up the opportunity to get cheap deals or things of this nature that we often find being circulated. That is the basis that I put it upon, and I do not think there is anything wrong with that. Equally so, however, I do believe that people have a right not to receive this type of mail.

I am afraid, Ms Tucker, I cannot accept your comments that you 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. I do not accept that. I think that, if one lives in a democracy, you have as much right to opt out of that as you have to opt in. If I want to put a “No junk mail” sign on my letterbox—and I do—I should not be subject to all sorts of exceptions to that rule, including charitable organisations and political pamphlets.

I personally, if I am letter-boxing on behalf of myself, will respect “No junk mail”. I will not put my pamphlet in there, because I have a “No junk mail” myself.

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