Page 2768 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 21 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that, of the battered women, 17 said their spouses never viewed such material and 59 of the comparison group said that their spouses never viewed that material. I want to quote the conclusion that the researchers drew from that:
A total of 39% of the battered women versus only 3% of the women in the comparison group reported that they had been upset by their partners' asking them to imitate pornography. In addition, the battered women reported much more frequent pornography consumption by their partners than did the women in the comparison group ... 24% of the battered women reported that their partners had used physical force to obtain intercourse, whereas only 15% of this group said that they had been "raped". This apparent under-reporting of rape was not found in the comparison groups.
I think these things are eloquent and highly relevant. The evidence I have just quoted there is not isolated by any means.
Mr Berry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker; Mr Humphries has clearly gone off the subject matter. He is talking about pornography, by his own admission. In the explanatory memorandum, under the heading, "Business Franchise ("X" Videos) Bill 1989", it says that this Bill will establish a licensing scheme for wholesalers and retailers of X classified videos; the licence fee - and so on and so forth. This is about licensing and taxation, and I think Mr Humphries ought to stick to the subject.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you for that observation, Minister Berry. It is very difficult to separate the issue from the debate as it is proceeding, but please do not get into extensive detail on the matter. Please stick close to the point.
MR HUMPHRIES: Henceforth I will avoid extensive detail, Mr Speaker. I think the second reason why the Opposition opposes this legislation and, by implication, supports the removal of X-rated videos from the ACT market is that the impact on children of such videos is much greater than it is on adults. I do not think any person in this chamber would need to be convinced that for children to see such material would be extremely harmful. I think, also, members would be well aware that, with the technological achievements of our age and in particular the accessibility of video machines and the understanding of video machines by very young children, it is not difficult to envisage circumstances where young children - even very young children - could obtain access to such material.
I know that there will be debate in this chamber at some point in the future about tobacco advertising, for example, and the point will be made there, I am sure, by members opposite that young people and people generally are susceptible to advertising and susceptible to images that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .