Page 1231 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 24 April 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
address the issue. A ban is equivalent to shooting the messenger. Do we ban high-powered motor cars because there is a causal link with some road deaths?
There will always be some within society who will be unduly influenced by popular media, wherever they find it. As Attorney-General, I will be strongly advocating at the June meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General a motion calling upon the Federal Government to direct the Commonwealth chief censor to perform a classification role in respect of the X- and R-rated videos. I believe that the censor is not performing his duty regarding X-rated videos. Weeding out violent X-rated is not the end of his classification role in the X category. The censor should go on to classify within the X category. Similarly, I wrote on 9 April to the Federal Attorney-General, Mr Michael Duffy, asking for a fourth classification within the R category.
I am of the view that an outright ban may be premature and a simplistic response to what is an important social phenomenon. Let us be clear about one thing: outlawing X-rated videos is not going to stop their production and distribution, nor will it change the attitudes of those who make, sell, buy or view them.
A more constructive approach would be to consider such questions as paying greater attention to the fundamental social and cultural factors which have allowed the industry to flourish; holding detailed discussions with other Attorneys-General at a national level on the question of how to regulate the industry to meet legitimate community concerns; considering measures to protect workers in the sex industry from exploitation; considering measures to restrict access to X-rated material by minors; imposing restrictions on the advertising and promotion of these videos; and imposing restrictions on their place of sale. I am surprised that those genuine anti-pornography campaigners, whose sincerity I acknowledge and admire, have not challenged the decisions of the chief censor in relation to particular movies. This avenue has been utilised in at least one case in 1987. Two priests challenged the classification of an imported film, Hail Mary, under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act.
Mr Speaker, this possibility is not available to just any citizen, but to those who can show an interest over and above those of an ordinary citizen. If the classification of certain movies is of such concern to particular groups perhaps similar action could be taken by them in more cases rather than to single out persons of conscience and hound them, as has occurred to us members of the Assembly.
I share many of the concerns of those who have made their views known on this issue and no doubt many of those who have been less vocal. However, there is a bigger issue at stake, and that is the right of adults in Australia to choose what they wish to see in private.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .