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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4998 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

This is not in any way an attack on ACTEW, and I am sure other members do not see it as an attack on ACTEW, but it is about making sure that the consumers are appropriately protected and that their ideas are taken into account when decisions are made on pricing regulation. It is the role of ACTEW to put to the pricing commissioner the sorts of issues in this regulation. If the Minister wishes to or the Minister's department wishes to, they can also emphasise them. Then it is up the commissioner to decide not to be driven in a certain direction as this regulation attempted to drive him.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) (ENFORCEMENT) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

Debate resumed from 4 December 1997, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR WOOD (6.23): Mr Speaker, the issues around X-rated videos have been much debated in the three Assemblies since the first days of self-government.

Mr Moore: What a shame we do not have Dennis Stevenson here.

MR WOOD: He would add to the debate. He would certainly add to the length of the debate. This Bill is not just about X-rated videos in legislative terms but that is really what it is about. I participated in some of those debates in the past. I have seen the public vigils and the prayer groups and attended to the arguments that were put forward. I have also been aware of some of the hype around the issue. I think tonight this will be dealt with a little more expeditiously and without the contention that has appeared before. The X-rated video industry is not universally accepted but this Assembly, in its nine years of operation, has undertaken a long process of establishing and then refining legislation.

This latest amendment is designed to close a loophole. It seems that some operators do not seek a classification for some films, and there can be a large number of copies of those films. The Act currently contains a defence to a prosecution for possessing an unclassified film if the film has been classified after the alleged offence. This means that some people can elect not to have films classified unless they are prosecuted. That is the loophole that does need to be closed. It is quite undesirable, and the Opposition supports this amendment to close that loophole. We support also the other amendments about the return, the destruction and, in some cases, the retention of seized films.

MR MOORE (6.25): I rise to support the legislation, which, as I read it, is primarily about the seizure and destruction of unclassified film material. It is quite interesting how we make freudian slips in the way we deal with things. Mr Humphries's introductory speech appears to try to hook Mr Osborne in for support. The paragraph starting on the bottom of page 2 reads:

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