Page 4693 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 28 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Unfortunately, many of these videos already exist in Australia, and this Bill will not and cannot make them disappear. However, the existence of these videos is not an argument against a Bill to prevent the further proliferation of harmful pornographic material.
There is nothing to justify the existence of pornographic videos; they have no artistic, literary or therapeutic value. Conversely, there are compelling reasons to prevent them from permeating Australian society - they can lead to sex crimes and child abuse; they degrade both men and women; and they contribute to the decline of moral values and family stability. The supporting arguments advanced by the dealers in pornography are unfounded and easily discounted. The arguments against banning are, likewise, without real substance.
The first responsibility of the ACT Legislative Assembly is to the citizens of the ACT. There is, however, a wider responsibility to ensure that the standards and laws applying in the ACT do not undermine those which prevail in the States. Furthermore, there is a reasonable expectation that Canberra, as the nation's capital, will take a lead in setting standards. The Federal Government, before relinquishing responsibility for the ACT, was remiss in not banning X-rated videos when there were growing calls for such action. This Assembly now has the opportunity to right that wrong, to the great benefit of ACT citizens in particular, and the people of Australia in general. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
MR SPEAKER: I advise members that I am having my staff look at the similarities between the two Bills at this time. I will report back to the Assembly this afternoon, for us to decide whether, under standing order 170, action can be taken.
Mr Collaery: Before I move to adjourn the debate on this matter, I also take the point about standing orders 136 and 170. I believe that this Bill is out of order. Mr Speaker, this may assist your inquiries. By comparing the Bill that is now before the house with the Bill that was put forward earlier by Mr Stevenson, one finds that substantially all of this Bill is almost a replica. I am not speaking to the Bill yet, Mr Speaker; I am raising a point of order. I propose to adjourn the debate, subject to your ruling this afternoon; but I am taking a point of order. The point of order is that Mr Stevenson is introducing a Bill which is substantially the same as that which has already been dealt with by this house.
Firstly, clause 3 of the Bill that is before us now is the same as clause 3 of the Bill which was defeated in this Assembly. That clause not only is the same but also continues to offend section 23(1)(g) of the self-government Act, which states that the Assembly has no power to make laws with respect to, inter alia, the classification of materials for the purposes of censorship.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .