Page 464 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: I thank Mr Humphries for the question. I have met with representatives of the group that he mentioned. The meeting became less than amicable when I said that I believed that they were attempting to mislead me and other members. That occurred because they produced to me photocopies of covers of two magazines, and said, "This is the sort of thing we are talking about". One magazine was entitled Picture and the other was entitled Biker Hustler. They then said, "And this is the sort of thing that is in it", and they produced a very large, full-colour photograph of a group of people engaged in explicit sexual activity. I said to them, "You are misleading me. This is not the type of material that is included in Picture or Post or that type of magazine. You are showing me a picture from a hard-core, restricted magazine". They denied that and said, "No, this is the sort of thing we are talking about".
I looked at the magazine in question, the Biker Hustler, and saw that it is a category 1 publication which is restricted in its sale in newsagencies and which is covered by the Commonwealth laws. They said, "This is the sort of thing that is available on unrestricted display in newsagencies". I challenged them on that. I said, "Did you get it from a newsagent?". They said, "Well, no, actually, we didn't; but we were told that it came from a newsagent in Dubbo". So, Madam Speaker, I was less than impressed by a group showing a piece of restricted, category 1 pornography and claiming that it was the sort of thing that was involved in the Picture, Pix, Post debate, because it is a quite different type of material.
I said to them that this Government is, and remains, committed to espousing the cause of equality and women's rights, that the best way to get this material out of circulation and defeat the sort of prurient interest that a certain group in the community has in this type of material is through raising awareness. I said to them, as I have said publicly, that these days you tend not to see the page 3 girl in the popular press and the poster on a workshop wall, which was familiar eight or 10 years ago, because attitudes are enlightened. I said to them, as I have said publicly, that I do not think censorship is the way to go about it; we have had that debate. Because they seem to be concerned about the magazines that display bare breasts, I have challenged them, as I challenged Mr Moore, to come up with a definition which would prevent the display of the bare breast on Pix magazine but allow the display of the bare breast for Rubens or National Geographic or what-have-you.
I did meet with them. I believe that they were pushing a misleading line by showing me - I wonder whether they showed other members - a very graphic picture of quite hard-core pornographic material which is properly very restricted, and they claimed to me that this was the type of material that is in the soft-core porn debate. I also said to them that I encourage them to talk to newsagents and suggest self-regulation, which is a sensible way to go. I have noticed that in a number of service stations and newsagencies in Canberra this sort of material is now not on open display but is on more restricted display.
I would add that I was most concerned at suggestions from a member of the Canberra community that people should go into newsagencies and smash videos and rip up magazines. I was particularly concerned to see that when I also was aware, as members who read the Canberra Times would be, that there is an individual in Canberra who is currently facing the court in relation to accusations that on three occasions he has entered an X-rated video store and attempted to set it on fire. The store is in a building which is shared by restaurants and other facilities.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .