Page 2735 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 21 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Grassby: So, now you watch them.
MR KAINE: No, I have not seen one in my life. Later in my remarks, Mr Speaker, I will explain why. The setting out of our reasons for opposing the Bill will be in marked contrast to the Chief Minister's justification for introducing it in her presentation speech on 2 November. Ms Follett's comments on that occasion were low-key and dealt with machinery provisions of the legislation. She carefully steered clear of putting forward any reasons, cogent or otherwise, for introducing it, as though she was embarrassed. Ms Follett had good reason for being embarrassed because her reasons for introducing the Business Franchise ("X" Videos) Bill 1989 can be summed up by a simple four-letter word, "loot" - loot from lust, if you like.
Mr Duby: Was that "loot", Mr Kaine?
MR KAINE: I pronounced it very carefully, Mr Duby. Despite its limitations and restrictions, its safeguards and controls on licensing and distribution, this legislation is in effect a money Bill. It is estimated to raise $2.5m this financial year and $5m in a full year. There are those who are well informed on the magnitude of the video porn industry who claim that these estimates considerably understate the potential revenue.
This Bill confirms what we in the Opposition have been saying since July, that the Government's budget strategy is in tatters, that it urgently needs money and that, in its desperate pursuit of revenue, this Government is prepared to sacrifice its principles, its policies and its philosophy.
I submit that the Chief Minister was aware of the hypocrisy to which she was party in putting forward this legislation because in her presentation speech Ms Follett plaintively claimed that "it should be clearly understood that this Bill does not have the effect of legalising or legitimising X-rated videos". Mr Speaker, I beg to differ. The mere fact of taxing these products gives them a status and an acceptability which they have not hitherto enjoyed in the wider context of the ACT and Australian society. It does legitimise them. With this high-profile public endorsement by the ACT Government of X-rated videos, the defence that Ms Follett's legislation will neither legalise nor legitimise them is totally specious.
For a fistful of dollars the Follett Government has prostituted its own social justice policy and has degraded its own policy regarding women. This women's policy, I remind members, was a jewel in the Labor Government's crown, as proudly attested to by the Chief Minister in her first 100 days media release of 18 August, in which she stated that the Government had to reaffirm a fundamental commitment to women through the allocation provided in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .