Page 3421 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 18 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is about limiting the rights of the ordinary person in the community. The Labor Party will not stand for that, nor will we stand for the sorts of links that have been suggested by Mr Stefaniak. For Mr Stefaniak to suggest that incest is in some way related to pornographic or X-rated videos is quite wrong. Incest has been around a lot longer than films.
Mr Stefaniak: I mentioned one case that I did. I was just giving examples, that is all.
MR BERRY: That is right. Why mention one case? Incest has been around a lot longer than celluloid. For you to draw those links is quite wrong.
Mr Stefaniak: And violence has been around a lot longer than violent videos, too.
MR BERRY: Indeed it has. I do not see that by drawing those links you help the quality of the debate much. This is clearly an issue about the rights of the ACT community to watch videos that are entirely legal in this country. They have been imported into this country in accordance with the law. People in this Assembly are trying to create new political standards, dare I say it, for crass political reasons. This debate has been shamed by the refusal of members to accept that these videos are in the country quite legally and they ought to be available to people in the ACT who want to watch them.
MR HUMPHRIES (10.50): It is not necessary to make any long contribution to this debate, since innumerable contributions have already been made previously by every member of the Assembly. However, I rise to support my colleagues and the position the Liberal Party has consistently taken on X-rated videos since the beginning of this Assembly and which we take again today, that is, to support the banning of X-rated videos, in line with the decision made by other States.
The arguments we have heard are the same arguments we have heard before. The argument Mr Berry has put about limiting the rights of ordinary citizens in the Territory to view what they wish is a matter that perplexes me to some extent as a small "l" liberal, as one who respects the right of people to do as they wish, free of interference by government. Clearly, we have to examine very carefully any proposal which purports to limit the rights of citizens to do particular things.
One might assume, at first blush, that viewing pornographic videos in the privacy of one's home is just such a right; but we need to go beyond the mere act of looking at videos to the context in which that occurs, to see whether it is a right that affects only those who pick up the videos and put them in the video machines and look at them in the privacy of their own homes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .