Page 1417 - Week 05 - Thursday, 13 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would expect that there would be few prosecutions under this legislation. We would expect that cinema owners would be cooperative and effectively self-regulate. If, however, it becomes apparent that video outlets are willy-nilly hiring out the MA films, we may well need to have a few trial prosecutions. I expect and understand that our policy in relation to the way this will be enforced will differ in no respect from the policies of other governments around Australia, whether they be Liberal or Labor. We are expecting the industry essentially to monitor itself in relation to these provisions. It is one of the reasons why we have penalties which really are quite low when you consider that they are directed against major corporations. They are quite trivial when you compare them to the penalties that we have, say, for inappropriate use of X-rated materials, or the penalties, which are very steep penalties, for unclassified, beyond X, pornographic or child pornographic materials. A $500 penalty for major corporations really is more a warning than a punitive penalty.
I thank members for their contributions in support. Mr Humphries's proposed amendment is in relation to removing an "and" and substituting "or". This is probably one of those cases, Mr Humphries, where the "and" would be read to be an "or"; but, given that, I have no difficulty in accepting your specific change from "and" to "or". As you would be aware, we all go through law school and it is explained that in some cases "and" can mean "or", or it can mean "and" and vice versa. The explanatory memorandum did make it clear that it was intended that either arm of that defence would be available. I am quite happy to accept that amendment that you propose.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
FILM CLASSIFICATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993
Debate resumed from 31 March 1993, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .