Page 5890 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is a bad law, and I urge members of the Assembly not to support it, for the reason of principle. I ask members of the Assembly who may be pledged to a party policy and who may enthusiastically support their party policy seeking to ban the X-rated video industry in this Territory not to support this amendment, because it is a stunt for the other States and it creates a bad precedent of a new form of criminal law, with liability depending on the law of another State.
MR STEVENSON (12.06), by leave: I move the following amendments to Mr Collaery's amendment:
After the words "a person who", insert the word "knowingly"; and
Omit the words "knowing that the possession of that X-Film is prohibited by law of that State or Territory".
Firstly, I shall talk briefly about the principle of law. I do not believe that it is okay for a law of this Territory to be dependent on laws that may come or go in another State or Territory. However, that problem can be easily resolved. My amendments seek to do just that.
The amendments would, first of all, insert the word "knowingly" after the words "a person who" at the start of Mr Collaery's amendment. Obviously enough, it is important that a person is not just working in the post office, a courier service, et cetera. They need to know what they are doing.
The second amendment is to omit the words "knowing that the possession of that X-film is prohibited by the law of that State or Territory". This removes the problem Mr Connolly has highlighted, and he asks us to vote on the point of law, not on the principle of X-rated pornographic videos. My amendment would remove the problem with the point of law, and then we can debate the actual issue. I know that time is moving on. I need say no more about the principle of the amendments.
MR MOORE (12.08): The amendments moved by Mr Stevenson bring out the issue at hand and are a logical way to deal with it. It is an issue we have dealt with time and time again in the chamber, but it is Mr Stevenson's right to take an opportunity like this to deal with the issue rather than get caught up in the original concept of this law.
I think Mr Collaery's concept is set out very nicely in the original Bill, where we read the headings "Aiding and Abetting", "Incitement" and "Conspiracy". That is really what this is all about. It is about a tactic somehow or other to develop a strategy that will embarrass Labor and Liberal governments all over Australia because they have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .