Page 3368 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have viewed a range of material that certainly I would consider to be confronting and disturbing, as part of my deliberations and as part of the deliberations of attorneys-general around the country in relation to the establishment of the R18+ classification. But it is important to note that some of the most graphic and some of the most disturbing material I have seen is material that is already classified as R18+ for the purpose of film. The question before us is: if we permit some of that material to be classified—(Time expired.)
MR SPEAKER: Ms Porter, a supplementary question?
MS PORTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Attorney, can you update the Assembly on the deliberations on this issue at the most recent meeting of the Standing Council on Law and Justice?
MR CORBELL: As I have already indicated—and I thank Ms Porter for the question—attorneys-general have agreed at our most recent meeting in Adelaide in July to establish this R18+ classification. The classification scheme will be broadly uniform across Australia. The exception will be the approach adopted by South Australia, where South Australia will not continue with an MA15+ classification. They have decided that any material that is either classified as MA15+ or R18+ will be classified as R18+ according to their scheme. So the material will still be available, but they have taken the view that that material should be available only to people who are over the age of 18.
With that exception, all other states and territories, including Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, have agreed to establish an R18+ classification consistent with the guidelines that have been proposed by the commonwealth government. Those changes will now be implemented through passage of legislation in the federal parliament and in the state and territory parliaments to allow for the introduction of an R18+ classification.
I look forward to receiving further details about the detailed amendments to the national classification code which will back up this in-principle decision from the federal government later this year.
Government office building
MS LE COUTEUR: My question is to the Minister for Economic Development and it concerns the government office building. Minister, on the weekend you announced that the government will now be market testing interest in the design and construction of a new office building for both Civic and Gungahlin. Given that the government had already decided, or said it had decided, the most cost-effective financing and ownership option is for the government to own and build the city office block, will this market testing include examining other options of design, build and own options? Are you aware of other options, such as co-ownership, leasing or management options, which are not yet in the government mix?
MR BARR: Yes, I can advise the member that, particularly in relation to the Gungahlin development proposal, we have engaged Cox Architects to undertake some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video