Page 1415 - Week 05 - Thursday, 13 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am sure that there will be many more examples of such anomalies and I would hope that there may be some way of bringing a more rational approach to the classification of videos and films. Perhaps after the task of classifying new releases has been made standard a review of older releases can be undertaken. This task need not be onerous and could concentrate on those films which are known to have caused concern in the past, but I feel that it is a task that is necessary if we are to be consistent in our approach to guidance through film classification. I will also be raising this issue with the Federal Minister and the Chief Censor when I write to them.
I would like to finish on a personal note, as the mother of a young person who is just approaching his fifteenth birthday. As a parent of a 14-year-old it is sometimes difficult for me to know whether an M-rated film is appropriate for my son to see. I see this move of introducing the MA classification as a very useful tool for parents who are in my position.
MR STEVENSON (11.36): The principle that parents are responsible for their children and the upbringing of their children is certainly one to be encouraged, and the proposed MA classification for films and videos does that. Ms Szuty brought up the point about the Labor Party's initial intention to move the Bill through rapidly. There is an ongoing concern about people in Canberra not being given sufficient time to look at Bills, to find out about what is happening, to lobby members, to discuss them with other people in Canberra, organisations, legal advisers and so on. Once again I want it noted that I will soon introduce an amendment to our standing orders that will require that all Bills stay on the table for a minimum of 60 days unless debated in this Assembly and agreed upon as being either urgent or of a minor administrative nature. I agree in principle with the Bill.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.37), in reply: I thought that on a subject like this Mr Stevenson might have waxed a little longer as it is touching on censorship - one of his favourite subjects.
Mr De Domenico: You should have asked him to.
MR CONNOLLY: I should never ask Mr Stevenson to go longer in a debate than he wishes to; he usually takes his full time.
I thank members for their support in principle for this legislation. I think it is an important Bill. Mr Humphries comments that the Bill is not going to provide a foolproof system; that it may be evaded; and that we cannot guarantee that it will stop every person under the age of 15 seeing an MA film. That is true. I do not think anyone would pretend that this will be a perfect system. It will not be enforced by stationing a police officer at every cinema and every video outlet in the ACT. That would be absurd. The penalties, as I understand them, at $500, are broadly consistent across Australia. A $500 penalty for a major corporation like Greater Union or Hoyts is basically a pretty trivial penalty. This is a law where, really, we are not focusing on punitive penalties and harsh enforcement. It is really a law where we are hoping to change behaviour and change attitudes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .