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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 9 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 2680 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

not what the legislation actually enables people to do. It simply provides that only in certain areas is it inappropriate to place signage. Obviously, the development of a code of practice will give people clearer information on exactly where they can or cannot place a sign. I think it is important to understand why we allow this practice in the first place.

Obviously, community groups need to be able to communicate their activities, they need to communicate what they are doing, and it is a legitimate way of advising other citizens of what activities they are undertaking and trying to get them to come along. The code of practice will obviously allow for a range of things to do with the content of signs, whether a group has to meet insurance requirements, how many signs you can have, and those sorts of issues. Quite clearly, this is a sensible process to go through. It is also important, I think, that the code of practice be able to tell people exactly why signs are not allowed in certain areas. That is where I think we need to have the debate with the community. That is where we need to have the community having some input through the Urban Services Committee on where and when these activities can take place.

I think it is a sensible move by the Minister. I think it will address the concerns raised by the community following the Assembly's passage of the Bill earlier this week. I look forward to the standing committee's consideration of the draft code of practice.

MR HIRD (12.19): I was not going to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, but my colleague Mr Corbell, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Urban Services, has chosen to say a few words and I wish to echo some of the concerns that Mr Corbell has identified. I would like to thank the Minister for referring this matter to the committee. It is an appropriate way of dealing with a concern which another member of the committee identified in this place earlier this week as to signs, in particular, on bridges and out the front of businesses and the responsibilities thereof. I think that members of the business community and the community generally would want to have an input. I believe that the appropriate way, as the Minister has indicated, is through my committee. I would like to give an undertaking to the Minister that my committee will be as active and diligent as it possibly can and will respond to his request as quickly as possible.

MR RUGENDYKE (12.21): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue in our Urban Services Committee. I must say that this code of practice and the legislation surrounding it have generated a large degree of interest in the media. I put that down to the fact that I took a stance and decided not to vote with Labor, Liberal or the crossbenches.

Mr Berry: Some of whom were known formerly as the Osborne Independent Group.

MR RUGENDYKE: Yes, that is right. I welcome the opportunity to see whether my stance was correct, as I suspect it might have been. I do wonder - I hope we will find out - whether this legislation will bring about the clinical, surgically attractive city that the NCDC had hoped to achieve and whether we need $5m of public liability insurance for people advertising their garage sales.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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