Page 3435 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 18 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Those statistics, as with the more recent statistics on incest, are not about whether something else has been made available; they are about people feeling that they can report and that they should report because it is unacceptable behaviour. No longer do we sweep this sort of behaviour under the carpet; we bring it into the open.
Since we were not sitting last night, some of you may have had the good fortune to watch GP on television. This situation was illustrated by one of the characters, who as a child had been molested and had not been able to deal with the situation. She is now an adult and her child was able to deal with the problem because there has been a great transition in our society in what we are prepared to talk about and what we are not prepared to tolerate. We are beginning to distinguish between what is violent and what is an agreement between two people.
I emphasise again that prohibition policies will have the opposite impact. This is the warning I gave when the X-rated video taxation was introduced. Mr Duby will remember that I interjected at the time they introduced a 40 per cent tax and said, "Wrong way to go; we should start with a 10 per cent tax and, if you like, take it to a 40 per cent tax. I have no problem with dealing with a 40 per cent tax".
I think we are all aware now that it was a mistake. With the heavy taxation, X-rated movies were forced underground and operators started all over Australia and were making their profits in that way. Had we introduced our tax on a gradual basis, then not only would we eventually have got more taxation but also we would not have had a sudden upsurge in competition, which reduced the number of X-rated movies going through the ACT and hence lost us some of that taxation base.
That is an argument about taxation and an argument about money. But it also implies the argument about prohibition - that an extremist solution will not resolve it. Dr Kinloch and I were fortunate enough to hear a speech by Dr Stephen Mugford in a series of talks presented at the Australian National University some two weeks ago, in which Dr Mugford emphasised what he calls the Goldilocks theory. When you are dealing with issues of prohibition and social control you can make the mistake, like Goldilocks, of being too hard or too soft. The answer for legislators, according to his theory - which is why he calls it the Goldilocks theory - is in the middle: Take a very careful look at how you are going to restrict rather than taking the extreme views of giving either a free-for-all or full prohibition.
That is what we have already done. We have already restricted these movies to Fyshwick, Mitchell and Hume; so they are not easily accessible, particularly to families, but are accessible to people who, because they choose to, want to watch a very explicit sexual act. I find that far
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .