Page 601 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: All right; I will foreshadow that amendment and move it in the detail stage, should we get to the detail stage. That amendment gives Mr Collaery as Attorney-General the power to put R-rated movies in Fyshwick, if he wishes. It also gives him the power to put them in a restricted publications area, in the same way as X-rated movies are dealt with now. The effect of the amendment is to move the X-rated movies out to Fyshwick in line with Rally policy - a compromise policy which was reached on the table tennis table in my house at the time when we decided these matters - of restricting them from family accessible areas. All I have done - and he calls it grandstanding or getting the spotlight - is to move at a time when I thought a compromise was necessary - and I will come back to why I thought a compromise was necessary - and put into effect a policy that I had reached with other members of the then executive of the Residents Rally, which has now, of course, become the developers Rally. The point that I am making is that as a result of this amendment, the Attorney-General's power - - -
Mr Jensen: Good one, Michael.
MR MOORE: In fact, Mr Jensen, I will exempt you from my previous comment because I believe you are very genuine about this matter and I would like to have that on the record.
My amendment, which says that the films shall not be exhibited or displayed, except in a restricted publications area, and applies just to R-rated films, gives the Attorney-General the power to judge that by regulation. That is clear from a reading of the principal Act.
How did I come to that conclusion? Mr Collaery had a brief chat with one member of the video industry, but I have the minutes of several meetings that I had with members of the video industry. This was a compromise that I reached with them after two long telephone conversations with the Chief Censor, plus a trip to Sydney and a two-hour meeting with him and one of the members of his staff. I came to that conclusion because members of the video industry talked about the educative process and showed me the front of their video covers - and I have a couple of examples here if members wish to look at them - on which they now add a description of exactly what is in a movie so that adults can decide what they want to watch. That is what we are talking about here when we look at the difference between Mr Stevenson's Bill and my Bill.
What I am attempting to do, and I explained it very clearly in my original speech, is to minimise the usage of both violent movies and also non-violent erotica. We have to choose between the principle of paternalism and value judgments, which is the sort of thing we find in Mr Stevenson's Bill or a sensible compromise which allows the right of consenting adults to do, read or view what they want in their own home provided it does no harm to others.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .