Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 8 Hansard (29 October) . . Page.. 2496 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
Pro-choice members of the community, who were opposing the legislation and who wanted to raise awareness, were actually in the city offering people information about that particular event. I came across that several times when leaving the bus in the morning. So I had a choice about whether or not to take that information.
I do not see that the labour involved in doing that is very different from the labour involved in putting it on people's windscreens. I have noticed that, when it is put on people's windscreens, especially when it is on the left-hand side, it does get left there, it blows off and it is a litter issue. It is also a waste issue, because many of us do not want that information anyway. So I think there is an alternative way for community organisations or small businesses, if they want to broadcast their business activities or their events, to do that without imposing those views on people who do not want that information.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It being 5.00 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Humphries: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
MS TUCKER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That was very nicely done. In conclusion, I would just say that I think the legislation does have environmental benefits. I think it is in line with the Government's no waste by 2010 strategy. I do not think the community is going to be disadvantaged as a result of it. So I am happy to support it.
MR RUGENDYKE (5.01): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was considering two ways to move on this important issue. My experience in a far distant, prior career brought back memories of the Litter Act - it was a couple of hundred dollars for throwing something on the road; or, if you smashed a bottle, that was a dangerous thing, and that was a couple of hundred dollars extra. The other thing I remember about the Litter Act, if my memory serves me correctly, is that the penalties were in the form of litter infringement notices.