Page 2052 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 5 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly would no doubt be aware - are not uncommon in legislation. It is one way of restricting things. Instead of actually naming areas in the statute, you can have provision for prescribed areas. There is no magic in it. I think Mr Collaery has made it quite clear that the Government is looking to restrict the sale of X-rated videos to the light industrial areas, as Ms Follett has highlighted.
This Bill before the Assembly seeks to impose regulatory measures. Those measures are in addition to those already contained in the principal Act. I have some sympathy with Mr Stevenson's position; he is an advocate of banning X-rated videos. I put this to him: suppose there are six suburbs; you have a rat plague and you do nothing; as a result, you will have a rat plague in those six suburbs. If you are able to counter that rat plague in three suburbs, you are left with rats in only three suburbs. That is obviously far better for the citizens of that particular town. The measures in this Bill are in addition to those already contained in the principal Act, and I would like to highlight a few of those measures.
Clause 4 of the Bill seeks to restrict the sale and distribution of X-rated videos to the prescribed areas. Those will be prescribed by regulations made under the principal Act - subject of course to the passage of this Bill - a not uncommon occurrence in legislation, as I have indicated. I realise that some suburban video outlets and perhaps some service stations outside the prescribed areas may be deprived of some trade. The Liberal Party certainly makes no apology whatsoever for that.
The industry as a whole must appreciate that the ACT has been under national scrutiny in relation to the regulation of this industry. The tightening of the controls over the distribution of sexually explicit advertising material is welcome. It may be that some recipients are the victims of a practical joke or a vindictive neighbour, but no unsuspecting person should have to be confronted with displays of sexually explicit material when opening unsolicited mail. The unsuspecting public, wherever they are in Australia, need the courtesy of a warning. That is what is proposed in clause 7 of the Bill.
Recently in the ACT we have seen the use of a minor by the anti-X-rated lobby to obtain, by the use of a false name, X-rated material. Leaving aside any argument as to whether that was right or wrong, and that has occurred before, I think - some ACT residents might recall a certain lady getting some publicity in relation to that about seven years ago - it does establish an anomalous situation which really causes any right-thinking person some concern. There is a need to tighten up any abuses of the present system whereby minors can get X-rated videos, be it through their own acts or by using an adult.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .