Page 2308 - Week 08 - Thursday, 7 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine suggests that I did something for the good of publicity, not because I believed it was the will of the community. Let us look at Mr Kaine's statement on the will of the community, issued on 21 November 1989. He said:
Mr Speaker, this community finds it totally unacceptable to legalise video pornography. I believe it finds it equally unacceptable and repugnant to legitimise it by institutionalising it as a legitimate source of tax revenues.
Ms Maher: Why don't you get off it?
MR STEVENSON: I do not get off it, Ms Maher, because it is important, and unfortunately neither you nor any other member on your side of the house has acknowledged the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter is very simple in this debate. If we had an adjudicator of debates, I think the direction of this debate would be very obvious. The simplicity of the entire debate is not about pornographic video taxes, it is not about personal publicity or other matters that are being drawn across to try to divert attention from the true reason for the debate, as anyone in this Assembly knows, or should have the awareness to know.
The simple argument is that the majority of members in the Alliance condemned vehemently and totally a video tax. The majority of members in the Alliance had the numbers to make sure that a video tax was not introduced. The no-confidence motion was introduced because they did not do what they said they believed should be done. That is the simplicity of it.
Mr Jensen, Mr Humphries and others mentioned that there were much more important matters to debate and that this was a waste of time. Mr Humphries, in particular, said the no-confidence motion was a waste of time, as was the matter of public importance that I will introduce later today. I suggest that it is unfortunate that Mr Humphries should take such a stance, particularly on the matter of public importance, when he has not yet heard the evidence.
Mr Humphries: You have had more than enough time today.
MR STEVENSON: That does not detract from the fact that you have taken a stance on the matter of public importance that I have yet to introduce without knowing the evidence that I will produce.
Mr Humphries: I do not care what it is.
MR STEVENSON: You do not care what it is? That is unfortunate for the people that have been victimised within the Belconnen Remand Centre and who have legitimate ideas about that.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Be relevant, Mr Stevenson.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .