Franks Stephen: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18645] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 In Part 2 a very small part the term “objectionable publication” is used and it has the meaning that we will get after the application of the changes in Part 1. In each of the places it is used in Part 2 except one the term is defined as being an objectionable publication that has been banned or prohibited. In other words it seems deliberately intended to exclude those that are simply restricted. Mr Alexander of United Future seems to think that that is a big difference. He muttered: “Don’t you know the difference between censorship and restriction?”. Well yes we do. At what point does it cease to be censorship when the bill states that anyone under 60 cannot look at it? Is that just a restriction? Does that mean anyone who is under 21 when it is intended to be used in an educational institution? That is not restriction? In looking at this term Mr Alexander and Mr Goff have tried to hitch-hike on the unanimous disgust there is with child pornography in order to ensure that the censor gets the power that the Court of Appeal denied him. That is what this does. 
I would have expected and wanted Mr Goff to answer four questions instead of just screaming assertions and making vein-popping claims that we are wrong. He could have referred to the words of the bill which is what the Committee stage is for. He could have said exactly why it is that a blatant retrospective provision does not seem to be designed to allow the censor to go back and do what he could not do before. Why is it that the Government Administration Committee seems to have been gulled into thinking that it was preserving the gateway effect of section 3 when the new section 3D expressly states that defining “objectionable” for the purposes of these new restrictions does not take into account section 3? In other words there is an express provision that I would have thought Mr Goff could explain the intent of—a provision that negates exactly what the select committee seems to think it was doing. As a lawyer I would have to ask why a Minister of Justice would confine himself to shouting out personal abuse instead of addressing the bill. If it is so simple and so obvious why did the Minister not explain why section 3D states that the censor will not have to worry about the purpose provision or about what has been elevated by the Court of Appeal and by the select committee as the gateway? 
These are serious matters. We all want to see child pornographers and child pornography get the highest sanctions Parliament can give them. What we do not want to see is the people we disagree with ruled by the censor as being unable to communicate even with their own children because the censor has decided that is objectionable. United Future has colluded with the Government to enable the censor to go back to look at the Living Word Distributors Ltd video and other documents but nothing Mr Goff said in the time the Committee gave him to explain was about these provisions not being designed for precisely that purpose. This is a part where the unadorned word “objectionable” seems to have been put into something called “the schedule of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act”. I have to ask whether the Chinese Government could not use that to ask us to arrest Falun Gong practitioners. It is possible. 
Looking at the term “objectionable publication” I can see the likelihood of the censor being asked to decide that anything politically incorrect is potentially demeaning to someone. That is what the definitions allow. If the publication is merely demeaning and if it makes people feel bad about themselves the censor can ban it in the hands of young people. In fact it does not even state young people; it refers to an age restriction. It does not state what age. It does not state that the censor cannot say it is to be banned in the hands of anyone under 60. Is that the sort of law United Future likes—just hand it over to the censor trust the censor? I do not think many of us have good reason to trust the censor. The censor ignored the Court of Appeal. It needed two court cases and the censor simply ignored them. Mr Alexander and his party say: “We can trust the censor.” 
Marc Alexander 
: It protects the kids. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Protects the kids! I say to Mr Alexander that this bill has nothing to do with kids; it has to do with political correctness. It would be a help if the Minister would try to address these— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. For the whole time I have been in the Chamber whenever an ACT member has been speaking Mr Alexander has been carrying on a barrage of interjections. The interjections were not even reasonable. He was just giving a barrage of interjections and I think you should invite him to make a speech rather than allow him to behave in such a disorderly way and deliberately break up ACT members’ speeches even though this bill is all about censorship. I guess he is practising.