Page 1739 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (3.08): Madam Speaker, I have been approached, as have other members in this Assembly, by many people who are concerned by the public availability of material that they feel demeans and degrades women and therefore should not be freely available to everyone, including young people. Most of the debate thus far has revolved around the actions of a particular group that has taken physical action and protested at specific newsagencies, tearing up magazines they had bought for that purpose.
In addition to the radical groups opposed to the material, there are views being expressed by everyday community members who feel that they have no control over what they are exposed to when they visit a newsagent, service station or other retail outlet that stocks magazines that depict women in what they believe is an offensive manner. Interstate, where State governments have additional controls over censorship, there are restrictions on the material displayed imposed by way of specific categories or legislation. However, we in the ACT are deprived of an easy remedy by the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act, which under paragraph 23(1)(g) prevents the Legislative Assembly from making laws with regard to censorship. It would be easy, if this provision did not exist, to classify publications in the ACT according to a general community standard, and then regulate for their display and access.
What remedies are possible under the current legislative framework? To control the distribution of non-violent erotica, planning laws were enacted, which has limited this activity to the industrial suburbs of Fyshwick, Mitchell and Hume. I am not suggesting that newsagents should be restricted in their location. In addition, it does not serve the general community well to confuse the two issues of non-violent erotica videos and magazines. Non-violent erotica videos are classified and, as I have already stated, these businesses are restricted in their physical location.
Many in the magazine debate are calling for the introduction of legislation which makes the use of so-called blinder racks compulsory for newsagents who sell publications depicting nudity and explicit sexuality. This remedy gives adults access to the material, but prevents children, young people and people who find the material offensive from being exposed to it as a matter of course. As the Attorney-General, Mr Connolly, has pointed out, there is the question of what constitutes offensive or degrading material. I do not subscribe to the belief that all material that depicts sexuality is degrading or demeaning to women. The magazines that we all identify as being those complained of are primarily Picture and People, but have included Post, Playboy and Penthouse. However, I recognise that these are not the only magazines which offend people.
Other magazines which are classified by the censor as category 1 or 2 are all wrapped in clear plastic wrappers. They are still on public display, but can be perused more thoroughly only by the purchaser. What makes these magazines offensive to many people in the community? I have had the words "demeaning" and "degrading" suggested to me. However, the definition of these terms is vague, and I have encountered different viewpoints among those who found common ground in finding publications I have referred to offensive. My Macquarie Dictionary defines the word "degrade" as, "to reduce from a higher to a lower rank, degree, etc.;" or "to lower in character or quality; debase". "Demean" is defined as, "to lower in dignity or standing; debase". I would have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .