Page 3417 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 18 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, there are intimations of possible law reforms in the near future, which I would want to see at a Federal level. I would want to see what is done federally about film classification, classification of pornography, not for the ACT Legislative Assembly to impose itself upon the whole system around the country. I welcome that possibility of law reform and a more careful look at classification.
The third matter is the question of pornography itself, and here one could say a great deal. I do not see this as an issue of civil liberties. I speak with a long concern about civil liberties over my entire life, and I do not believe that we are here debating that matter. I do not think we are hurting anyone's civil liberties by supporting the Bill before us. What I believe to be crucial on the matter of civil liberties is freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech in the sense of opinions of all kinds being openly expressed - and people certainly can openly express their views on pornography. But I do not believe that we should be in the business of supporting a sleaze industry at a time when six other States of Australia have laws against it and we are violating those laws.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (10.35): Mr Speaker, I will be brief. I support Mr Stevenson's Bill, but not for the reasons Dr Kinloch has put forward. I do not think it is at all relevant to me in the ACT what the laws are elsewhere, and I would assert that we are not violating anybody's laws by the state of our law in the ACT. One could say, on experience, that it is counterproductive to have a law banning this material. I will guarantee that you can go to any State capital in Australia and find this material which, according to the law, is banned. It is untrue to say that it all comes from the ACT. It does not all come from the ACT. So, Dr Kinloch's argument, I believe, is an invalid one.
I support Mr Stevenson's Bill because I think there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this material is harmful. It is a little like drugs and other undesirable material. It can be demonstrated quite easily that it is harmful to some people in the community who are susceptible to it. That is not to say that it is harmful to everybody; I am not arguing that. I believe that this material adds nothing to the quality of our society, and, if it cannot claim that, then where is its merit?
I hate to intrude dirty words into this debate, but it is like fluoride. There is wide public opinion about fluoride. Some support it; some do not support it. But in the end this legislature took a view on it, and it is entitled to do the same about this pernicious material that is contained in X-rated films. My only argument is that Mr Stevenson's proposal does not go far enough, because there is material that is not X-rated that is violent, material that, like X-rated material, adds nothing to the standard of living and the values in this community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .