Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (18 April) . . Page.. 1101 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

very carefully and, if you are going to put it into place, Mr Humphries, you should set up mechanisms to ensure that there is debriefing after the game and that there is as much responsibility as possible taken to ensure that there are not ramifications from the playing of this game.

MR OSBORNE (3.43): How could I let an opportunity like that pass, Mr Speaker? I have to say that I do agree with a lot of what Ms Horodny said then, and I certainly am concerned about violence; but I cannot - - -

Mrs Carnell: Ban football?

MR OSBORNE: Exactly. I think you need to distinguish between different things. I really do not think you can compare paintball and rugby league; but I think you can compare paintball and some of the arcade and computer games, Mr Speaker. As I said in the press, I would be happy not to support this if we were to be fair dinkum about it and ban every other game that involved shooting and violence, such as the computer games that most children have in their homes. It would be hypocritical of me to stop this when we have those games in our own homes. As Mr Humphries said, I have partaken of the odd game, and I must say that it does hurt.

Mr Moore: Are you now talking about rugby or paintball?

MR OSBORNE: I am talking about paintball. I suggested to Mr Moore that perhaps all of us in this Assembly should head out there once a month and have a go at it. Mr Speaker, I just want to say, very briefly, that I will be supporting the Government on this issue. I cannot be a hypocrite and say that we should allow our own children to play at home with computer games and such things while we try to ban this sport.

MR MOORE (3.45): Mr Speaker, there has been some mirth in the Assembly over this issue; but the reality is that it is an on-balance decision. There were some very good arguments that Ms Horodny put up. I think that most members would recognise the validity behind those arguments. There were very good arguments that Mr Humphries put up and that have been put up through his advisers. I must thank him for providing that advice from his committee to me when I requested it.

Mr Speaker, for me, the decision eventually came down to the point that we must value personal freedom over the way we perceive a game when there is no direct evidence of harm to others. That was the crunch. In fact, the issue was raised here, in a joking way, about rugby being more violent. Indeed, Mr Speaker, I think more people will be hurt playing rugby than playing paintball. There are some very good arguments that playing contact sports - rather than concentrating on rugby - is, indeed, a way of encouraging a competitive attitude and an attitude that encourages young people to harm others in order to achieve a goal. One can easily put that kind of argument. The trouble with arguments like that is, of course, that there is some truth in them. That is why, for me at least, this was not a particularly easy decision to make. I think there are valid arguments on both sides. On balance, I think the issue of personal freedom outweighs the issue that Ms Horodny has raised. It is an on-balance issue. It is not one for which there is an easy, right-or-wrong answer, as is the case in many of the decisions we make in this Assembly.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .