Page 4469 - Week 14 - Thursday, 9 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
High Court's decision. Obviously, we need to examine that decision very closely to see what revision of the tax is possible, and whether there is any revised form of tax that is permissible, given that High Court decision. Mr Faichney will be examining that matter and advising the Government in due course.
I can advise Mr Stevenson that, in the meantime, the Government will not be moving to ban X videos. We have been consistent on this matter, and I see no reason to change our position. I think Mr Stevenson is also wrong in assuming that all States and Territories have banned X videos. The Northern Territory has not. As I am sure Mr Stevenson also knows, the matter of censorship, which is what this amounts to, is a matter for the Federal Government. I note that they have not moved, nor has Mr Downer, to censor these forms of videos in the Federal Parliament.
MR STEVENSON: I ask a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. First of all, let me remind the Chief Minister that I said "all States". I explicitly did not include the Northern Territory. I well understand the regulations in the Northern Territory, which were restricted to prevent, as best they could, X videos being distributed from the Northern Territory. We could do the same. However, as Mr Faichney mentioned regulating the industry, I ask: What practical, realistic regulation of the X-rated video industry could possibly be financed by a new tax?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, the question is entirely theoretical and hypothetical and I believe that it is out of order. I have already indicated that Mr Faichney will be reviewing that whole matter and advising the Government, and so he will be. I do not think it is in any way incumbent upon me to pre-empt that consideration and that advice. Clearly, if there is a decision to be made, the Assembly will be advised accordingly. I do take Mr Stevenson's point that he referred to the States, and I apologise to him for that.
Visiting Medical Officers Dispute
MR HUMPHRIES: My question is to Mr Berry as Minister for Health. Given that we seem to be in for the long haul on the current doctors dispute, will the Minister consider allowing private hospitals in the ACT at least temporarily to expand their capacity to accommodate those people unable to obtain treatment in the public hospital system? If not, is the Minister not placing some ideological concern about private hospitals ahead of the welfare of sick people in the ACT? I also ask: Is it true that the Minister has directed that private patients are precluded from using Calvary Public's obstetric facilities during this dispute?
MR BERRY: I think Mr Humphries's question is purely hypothetical.
Mr De Domenico: No, it is not.
MR BERRY: Hang on a minute! Settle, settle! If you want an answer, you have to settle. The issue of the length of the dispute is entirely hypothetical. Members will recall that earlier in question time I informed them that I had met today with the AMA, and I hope to give a response to that meeting soon. In that sense, I think Mr Humphries presumes that - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .