Page 3428 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 18 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
films. We have just said, as an Assembly, that we think it is sensible that those types of films be allowed to be shown when unclassified, provided they have gone through the New South Wales system. So, Mr Stevenson's ban here would potentially catch those films.
It really is in the eye of the beholder, and Mr Berry's remarks were quite apposite. Dr Kinloch took great exception to that, and he said, "I do not see pornography at a film festival". No doubt Dr Kinloch is absolutely sincere in saying that, because what he sees at a film festival, as a noted critic of films and someone who has probably seen more films than the rest of us put together, he does not see as pornography.
Mr Duby: There is bound to be someone who does.
MR CONNOLLY: As Mr Duby says, there is bound to be someone who would see that as pornography. So, it is a very difficult line to get involved in, and one that Territory-or State-level assemblies would do well to keep out of. Of course, as Mr Berry so eloquently showed, the agenda here is often not what it seems. Mr Stevenson has seized upon the pornography debate as his crusade for the next election, or beyond. The extraordinary double standard of a person who bears the placard of protecting women from violence through banning X-rated videos, yet encourages greater circulation of firearms and encourages persons to break the law in respect of firearms, is breathtaking and ought to be rejected by all members.
The essential point for the Labor Party, which is maintaining, as Mr Berry said, an adult's right to see material that has been through the lawful procedures of the Commonwealth Film Censorship Board, must be tempered with the comment that, if we thought for a moment that by banning material we would protect women against violence, we would be in it; but the evidence just is not there.
The double standard of the ban at the State level, where this material is allowed to be possessed and where there seems to be a remarkable laxness in enforcement of the sale ban, is leading to very offensive and disturbing material - material which has been refused classification or which has not been through the Commonwealth classification system - getting out into the community. I would have thought that, for persons genuinely concerned about material circulating in the community, that would be far more disturbing than the lawful and strictly regulated sale of material in this Territory.
MS MAHER (11.15): I have spoken on this issue before. The Assembly has had to deal with this issue because the Commonwealth, when it had the responsibility to administer the Territory, did nothing. The ACT Legislative Assembly inherited this situation at the time of self-government in May 1989. I have never heard one Commonwealth politician or one Commonwealth official concede that the Commonwealth
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .