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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4999 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The Bill amends section 24 of the Act by repealing subsection 24(3). That subsection currently contains a defence to a prosecution for possessing a film classified RC or an unclassified film ...

When I read that, I thought to myself, "This is definitely there just to hook Mr Osborne in. There is obviously some kind of film specifically designed to suit people of Mr Osborne's religion and they are going to hook him in on this". Either I have missed something in the legislation or something that Mr Humphries said or there is just a possibility that this is a typo. We must not forget that it is not just Mr Osborne; Mr Humphries himself may well be communicating with Mr Osborne in a way that the rest of us do not understand. Those of us who have had a background in that religion, as indeed I have, are sometimes tuned in, although after 25 years out of that religious environment we sometimes miss the nuance that carries between people, particularly when they no longer speak in Latin, which I consider has been a great loss to their ability to communicate with each other without letting the rest of us in on it.

After that interesting little diversion, I would like to add that I think it is appropriate that we classify our films. We may have differences on how we classify them, and it is appropriate that those differences be debated in this Assembly; but in the long term, once our classifications are made, once we agree on the system we want, then we should ensure that we police it in the appropriate way. It seems to me that this method will operate to allow that.

It is important that we understand that a significant power of seizure and destruction is being used here. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, under their term of reference about undue trespass on personal rights and liberties, drew it to our attention that we have to be particularly careful about justifying seizure and destruction of property. The committee noted that there is no provision for compensation to be paid to a person from whom a film is seized. It is quite an extraordinary power, and for that reason I will certainly be monitoring it and will certainly be asking people involved in the industry, people such as the Eros Foundation, to let me know whether in their opinion this power has been abused. Often the worst decisions are made for the best motives. I think we have to monitor this very carefully. That being said, though, I will be supporting the legislation.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (6.30) In closing the debate, I present a revised explanatory memorandum and thank members for their comments.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

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