Page 5060 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COLLAERY: I accept Mr Kaine's comment. He wants to listen. I said in my introduction speech:
Indeed, interstate banning laws presumably reflect a democratic vote and, accordingly, it is not appropriate for this Territory to undermine the will of our compatriot States.
If my colleague Dr Kinloch were here, he would surely support this, because he has often said it in our party room. The States have been critical of this jurisdiction; they have defamed us month in, month out nationally. I went on to say that it is now up to the States to bite the bullet, because none of them ban possession. This provision that is before you now will have no effect because it says:
A person who transmits an article or substance to a person in a State or another Territory knowing that the possession of that article ... is prohibited.
To the best of my knowledge - we have oft stated it in this house and I have had advice from the Government Law Office - the only State that marginally bans possession is Western Australia. It certainly does not enforce that law and you can see the ads for X-rated movies on the "What's On in Perth" when you get to Perth Airport. It is time the States, who are wallowing in their hypocrisy, had the challenge and gauntlet put down to them. So, if members would listen they would know - Mr Moore in particular would know - that this will operate only if a State brings in a law banning possession.
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, members! Could we just have a little quiet.
MR COLLAERY: Just go around the States, I invite my colleagues. Will Victoria ban possession of some of the 30 million X-rated videos? Will Tasmania? Will South Australia? Perhaps Queensland may.
Mrs Nolan: What about Western Australia?
MR COLLAERY: Western Australia has an ambiguous law which has not been enforced, on my advice, when I was formerly Attorney. I concede, and I am grateful to the Attorney for his comments, that the original draft of this was seriously awry. I am also grateful for the assistance of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who pointed out the large range of unintended effects the provision as originally drafted for me would have had.
This provision now has been narrowed right down and Mr Jensen, in his wisdom, has foreshadowed an amendment which narrows it right down to one article, an X-rated film. That is all he seeks to make this provision relate to. Therefore, it will not relate to drugs, as I wanted it to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .