Page 1742 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
we find offensive. Proponents of not restricting access to the publications that I have discussed tend to feel that they do no harm, and I cannot find any definitive research that allows an interpretation of what impact these publications have. Some people wish to extrapolate American research into video pornography to this issue. I do not see this as valid.
However, it is logical to assume that some impact does occur, given the way we educate our children about other issues. We ask them to observe the world around them. We model by repetition and the use of visual imagery. We subliminally inform them about what is acceptable by what we allow into our environment. There is a case for making this material available to what the censor sees as its target audience, over 18-year-olds. In doing so, we are saying to our community, "We are not going to restrict what you read. However, we will ask you to read this material in a way which will not offend others". We ask this with smoking and there are other behaviours which we allow, but place checks on, in an attempt to limit the access by young people and others who find particular behaviours offensive.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, there is much to be gained from listening to the concerns of the members of our community who are distressed at the public availability of offensive material. As the elected legislature of the ACT, it is incumbent upon us to listen to these concerns, not to give the false impression that we do not care, or that we as an Assembly feel that this issue is a case for the too-hard basket. Censorship is a matter for the Federal Government; but it appears that censorship has failed in the case of these publications, and we must make every endeavour to give our community appropriate legislative or regulatory relief from the public display of this material. Madam Speaker, we should ensure that we are open to suggestions on how this can be best achieved, take on the role of examining the work of other legislatures and find out how and whether they have addressed this issue. It may even be appropriate to examine the possibility of the Federal Government enabling the ACT to determine its own laws with respect to censorship.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (3.21): The points raised by Ms Szuty are extremely valid and important ones, and this is an appropriate matter for a matter of public importance. The Government would generally share Ms Szuty's concerns, but would differ from her in respect of her final remarks calling for improving the legislative or regulatory framework. I have discussed this issue of demeaning publications and demeaning images with a range of groups in the community, particularly with Ms Redmond, who was achieving some notoriety in the community as a leading proponent of a tougher line on this. I think we have left it at the point where we agree that we share goals but differ in our views on the means that should be applied.
My position, and the position of the Government, has essentially been that the best response to this type of material is an educative one. I would agree with Ms Szuty's comments that we really have to question who reads this material and that the material is essentially rubbish. But I really doubt whether it is appropriate for us to try to move in with a new form of censorship, a new form of regulation. Censorship is an inherently dangerous game to play, although we all acknowledge that there are points at which the community most properly says, "This is the line we draw". We all agree that bestiality and child pornography are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .