Page 2046 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 5 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
all three related Bills be adjourned so that there is an appropriate time for people to make any comments. I think it is quite reasonable for us to pass the in principle stage because the in principle concepts have already been passed by this Assembly through a series of other Bills dealing with X-rated movies.
However, the Government is attempting to carry the detail stage of these particular Bills with what can only be described as indecent haste, and I believe that it is incumbent upon it to explain the haste. If it is such an urgent matter, then these Bills should have been declared urgent. That has not been the case. So what is going on? What are the concerns? Can the Government give us a good enough reason to continue tonight with the detail stage, or is it happy for us to adjourn that stage? If there is a good enough reason, perhaps we can wear it. Otherwise, I would like to see the detail stage adjourned at the very least until Thursday, after the no-confidence motion is dealt with.
MS MAHER (8.07): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. The regulatory measures contained in it are steps towards tightening the controls that are necessary in the X-rated video industry. I consider this to be a beginning. As I said in my speech on 24 April, the Commonwealth and States also play an important part in the regulation of the X-rated video industry.
I realise that there are those in our community who would prefer that we ban X-rated videos. I have said before that systematic banning measures may be counterproductive in that they will drive the industry underground and render it unable to be regulated. In any event, this Assembly has had that debate and it is now time for us to move on and introduce regulatory measures of the kind contained in this Bill.
Mr Speaker, this Bill introduces a new offence, of assisting a minor to obtain an X-rated film, and not before time. A "film", of course, includes a "video". In my opinion, there should be no scope whatsoever for any adult to use a minor to obtain such an item. The proposed amendment in clause 5 of the Bill recognises that an exception is available in the case of a parent or guardian. That exception is there only to maintain consistency with the existing provisions in the principal Act which exclude from prosecution a parent or guardian who supplies a minor with an X-rated publication. However, I question the need for any parent or guardian to do such a thing.
I am informed that the Adult Video Industry Association already advises its members to seek confirmation by requesting the presentation of a credit card where there is doubt about the age of a mail-order purchaser. I submit that the industry will have no objection to the new provisions in clause 4 of the Bill which formalise the cautions for the industry as a whole. Proof of age can be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .