Page 2065 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 5 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that the debate be put away and that those policies that the Alliance can implement be implemented. I have heard my Liberal colleagues indicate that, were they to have their way, they would introduce a complete ban and, as the community widely knows, it has been Residents Rally policy since before the election to secure at least the withdrawal of this material to the non-family-accessible areas of Fyshwick. My colleagues in the Independents Group within the Alliance structure also support that view.
To those who believe that there has been indecent haste I point out that there has been enormous notice served on the industry and the community that, failing a ban, there would be a likely restriction of this material to the industrial suburbs. Very few issues could have been more broadly disseminated and publicised than this in both the immediate and the national community. Therefore, I do not accept that there has been undue haste. However, if there is a perception of haste, then perhaps it is due to the fact that the sittings cease this week and there would be a very long, divisive delay until the next sittings. It may well be that that could have been a factor in some minds, although it was not in mine.
Ms Follett mentioned the R classification as lacking in the approach on this Bill. The Assembly knows - and I have been completely frank about tabling the correspondence with the Federal Attorney-General, Mr Duffy - that this is an issue that I am addressing at the moment with the Federal Attorney and will be raising, hopefully with success, at the censorship Ministers and State Attorneys meeting in a week or two in Alice Springs.
The R classification requires an amendment to section 19 of the Publications Control Act, the parent provision. What amendment could we possibly bring in at this stage unless we secured another classification, perhaps the RV category, as we are seeking? It is not possible to effectively legislate in the R category, lacking constitutional powers as we do, until the Commonwealth gives us that further classification.
We have already indicated on this side of the house that we support the Leader of the Opposition's motion, which I believe is still extant on the notice paper, to create that further R classification category or to deal with it in an appropriate fashion. That is the honest explanation as to why we have not dealt with R at this stage. It is practically impossible and it is not timely, considering the potential for getting the further category in June by pressure from all State Attorneys on the Federal Attorney. I might say - and I hope this Hansard report is drawn to his attention - that he would ignore the strong wishes of the State Attorneys at his peril.
The Leader of the Opposition also raised the point that the Bill did not explicitly state the prescribed areas. Well, as my legal colleagues in the chamber would appreciate, the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .