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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Tuesday, 3 August 2004) . . Page.. 3374 ..

MS TUCKER (5.37): I thank members for their comments. I do not think this is implying that a communication between two members within a community, or the example Ros Dundas supports, would be seen as advertising material. We have a definition of advertising material, which means any paper products, with or without plastic covering, et cetera. I will not read it out; it is there for members to see. But it clearly would not fit into that category.

We have removed, in the exemptions I have made, “incorporated” from community association. I take the point. You could add to that “all communications between members of the community”, but I think the intent of this amendment is pretty obvious. It would be a pretty bizarre interpretation to think that you would somehow make a communication between one or two members of the community, or talking about a street party or whatever the examples were, fit into basically the intent, which is about advertising material which is certainly defined here.

On the question of its being a problem or not—because it has been a while since we did it—we did actually do a survey on this. We surveyed members of the Greens. Yes, arguably you might say they are chiefly litter conscious people and people who probably have “No junk mail” stickers. But in that way, they are a good sample to actually be surveying. We did do a survey of that group before we reintroduced this. The response was that it is a problem. That is why we decided to do this. I think you are talking to different constituencies in what you are saying.

The strict liability is not related to imprisonment. I think that is also a really important point to make. I think I have covered all those points.

Actually, Mr Speaker, I am just wondering: can we have them separated? I think there may be support for the balloons amendment.

Mr Wood: No.

MS TUCKER: No? No-one is even supporting the balloons?

Question put:

That Ms Tucker’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

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