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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4577 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

the Government has decided that the fees charged should reflect the scale and nature of the businesses being operated by the X industry. For that reason, I propose that where an operator both sells and duplicates X videos the operator will pay a higher fee than the operator who simply sells or duplicates X videos.

Similarly, the determined fee will reflect the number of outlets from which a licensee conducts such activities. The fee scale I am proposing will ensure that smaller X video sellers or duplicators will not be disadvantaged, because the fees imposed on operations with multiple outlets which are both selling and duplicating will be much higher than those for a single retailing outlet. Presently, the Act requires a licence only for a person to sell X films. To give effect to the Government's decision, the Act needs to be changed to require a person to be licensed to copy X films. These amendments will give effect to that requirement.

The Government is also proposing to prohibit the copying of films which have been refused classification or are unclassified. Presently, it is not an offence for a person to copy such films, provided that they do not do so with the intention of selling or exhibiting the films. However, it would be anomalous if a person were required to be licensed to copy X films but could copy refused classification and unclassified films with impunity. I do not consider that it is acceptable for persons in the ACT to be duplicating such films, the sale and exhibition of which are illegal throughout the country. Even if the person doing the duplicating does not intend to sell the films, it is reasonable to assume that he or she would know that the person who has commissioned the duplicating work intends to sell or exhibit these films.

It is also possible that some duplicators who believe they are duplicating X films may be unwittingly duplicating refused classification or unclassified films. At present they have no reason to inquire as to the classification of the film, given that they face no penalty even if what they believe to be an X film turns out to be a refused classification film. A prohibition on the duplication of RC and unclassified films will place an onus on duplicators to ensure that the material they are duplicating is not refused classification or unclassified material.

I was concerned to hear recently that one duplicator who claimed that some of the material he was duplicating was to be exported to South Africa took the view that it did not matter whether the films had been classified or refused classification, because they would be sold in a country other than Australia. The Government does not want any material that could not be lawfully sold or exhibited in the ACT being duplicated here for export to another country. To condone or permit such a situation would be an abrogation of our responsibilities as members of the Australian and world communities. This is a view which is shared by the Federal Government, which is moving to amend customs regulations to prohibit the export of refused classification and unclassified films. For these reasons, the amendments include a prohibition on selling or copying RC or unclassified films other than for law enforcement purposes.

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