Page 5888 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Omit clauses 4, 5 and 6, substitute the following clause:
"4. After section 151 of the Crimes Act the following section is inserted in Division 4 of Part IV:
Transmitting X-Films interstate
'151A. A person who transmits an X-Film to a person in a State or Territory knowing that the possession of that X-Film is prohibited by the law of that State or Territory is guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by imprisonment for 2 years.'.".
Mr Speaker, I want to comment only briefly on this. The offence imports the knowing test that Mr Connolly has quite correctly pointed out was required elsewhere in the Bill. That is, if a seller of X-rated films in this Territory does not know that there is a law banning possession in another State, there is a defence to any such offence. I have already mentioned that, to the best of my advice, there is no explicit ban on possession anywhere in Australia. There is an equivocal law in Western Australia, which to my knowledge is not enforced.
I stress that all States have a situation whereby they pay lip service to the fact that they would ban the films and that this Territory is the porn capital of Australia. In fact, there is an extensive porn industry in some other States, and this offence creates a situation whereby we can say justly that we are not seeking to overturn the democratic decisions of parliaments, in both Liberal and Labor territory outside the ACT. I do not know whether any parliament would legislate to ban possession. Members well know my views on prescriptive laws that seek to censor access, but I do not believe that other States can have it both ways.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.02): Mr Speaker, the Government remains opposed to this amendment in its final form. It has been through a number of forms in the weeks leading up to this debate. We remain opposed to it because of the fundamental principle that liability to the criminal law in this Territory should depend only upon the state of the law in this Territory. It is bad law, we say, to make liability to the criminal law here depend upon the state of the law in some other part of Australia. The criminal law should be self-contained.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .