Page 3168 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The committee is concerned about how this might be applied in the case of mischievous or vexatious bill posting. There is a possibility that bill posting could be undertaken unlawfully by an individual wishing to hurt a promoter. The committee, however, notes that section 121 is not proposed to be a strict liability offence, so the fault or intent element must be proved and a defendant would have greater avenues of defence than only the mistake of fact.
The committee is concerned that the bill could disproportionately impact on groups or individuals who do not have the resources to fund paid advertising. SMS and electronic advertising do not allow targeted communication with a local community and can easily become spam. These methods also only reach people who are already involved in a group. This form of advertising can be expensive and the mainstream media also sometimes refuses to accept certain types of material, leaving bill posting as one of the few ways to have an opinion heard.
The committee notes the Chief Minister’s comments to the Assembly about the problem with commercial enterprises promoting commercial events via illegal bill posting and suggests that the bill can target posters that are commercial in nature without placing too heavy an onus on political activists and community groups.
The committee also notes that the Roads and Public Places (Removable Signs) Code of Practice 2005 provides a mechanism for community groups, charities and schools to advertise events using movable signs. The code of practice enables community groups, registered charities and schools to display up to 20 signs for a period of two weeks prior to an advertised event. However, the committee notes that the costs associated with insurance requirements under the Roads and Public Places (Removable Signs) Code of Practice 2005 and the production of signage may render this form of advertising unattainable for many community organisations and individuals.
In recommendation 5, the committee recommends that the ACT government provide a link on the Department of Territory and Municipal Services bill posting webpage to the Roads and Public Places (Removable Signs) Code of Practice 2005 in order to direct the public to further information on the use of community signs.
Recommendation 6 was inserted because of the desire of the majority of the committee in response to the fact that the consultation regarding the amendments was conducted after the government had introduced and debated the bill. However, I believe that this recommendation is far too broad in its scope and unworkable in its implementation.
In conclusion, the committee notes from the government submission that TAMS has recently undertaken a telephone survey of 1,000 residents to “establish the views of the Canberra community towards bill posting”.
I note Ms Le Couteur’s dissenting remarks. However, I believe that her comments are an indication of her continued misunderstanding of the intent of this bill and that it targets those who insist on indulging in what I would describe as “commercial vandalism”. I also note that the media release that was put out by Ms Le Couteur’s
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .