Page 5288 - Week 14 - Thursday, 19 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Other results that emerged from those surveys underline the general community’s acceptance of consumer fireworks. In August 2008 41 per cent of those surveyed liked the spectacle of fireworks; 39 per cent thought that they were great for children and that they were fun and exciting. These figures were higher than the results from the October 2007 survey. In August 2008, 49 per cent were concerned about the impact of fireworks on animals, down from 51 per cent in 2007; 26 per cent thought that they could be unsafe, but only three per cent thought that they were not good for children.
In terms of misuse of fireworks, 22 per cent of people observed fireworks being used outside the regulation period in 2008, which was down from 28 per cent in 2007. Only 12 per cent experienced any animal welfare issues, down from 27 per cent in 2007 and 56 per cent of people in 2008 said that they had no issues with fireworks. In 2008 only two per cent of people raised issues about fireworks with the authorities, which was down from seven per cent in 2007.
There are other statistics too that in general point to a lower level of concern and a higher level of acceptance in the ACT community. This is borne out by the membership of the Facebook page called “Lift ACT ban on fireworks” established by anti-ban campaigner Clare Hogan. The lift-ACT-ban-on-fireworks page has more than 9,700 members. All of those members have joined in the last three months since the page was established, shortly after the ban took effect in August.
By contrast another Facebook page, which is called “Keep the ACT ban on fireworks” has managed to attract around 1,200 members. Even a protest from this group from Glebe Park to the Assembly advocating retention of the ban was reported in the Canberra Times on 15 November as attracting about 20 people and, as the Canberra Times put it, “their canine companions”. Regardless of any opinion anyone in this chamber might have about the efficacy or credibility of Facebook, we cannot ignore the views of those moved to become members of Facebook pages: 9,700 or more wanting the ban lifted and 1,200 wanting it to remain.
This government has ignored those views. It has ignored the telephone survey results. It has ignored the general views of the community about the continuing availability of consumer fireworks. It has certainly ignored Facebook’s following. Furthermore, this government has failed to consider the options of the continuing availability of consumer fireworks. It has failed to consider the regulatory arrangements in other jurisdictions, particularly the Northern Territory and Tasmania, where consumer fireworks continue to be available.
There is yet another aspect of this issue on which the Stanhope government has been silent. That is the question of people who visit Canberra simply because we have cracker night. I am aware, principally by anecdotal evidence, that there are people who travel to Canberra from interstate to be with their families on the Queen’s Birthday weekend, primarily to participate in that special once-a-year occasion, the family cracker night. One mother at one of my children’s schools recently told me how, since they have moved to Canberra, her parents travel from Queensland to spend the weekend with their children and their grandchildren simply because we have cracker night in Canberra and they do not have it in Queensland. This is not an isolated event.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video