Dianne Hadden
Vic State
Member of the Legislative Council
Independent
Electorate: Ballarat
Voted against the Victorian CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) (ENFORCEMENT) (AMENDMENT) BILL on April 19th 2005.
Title CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS
AND COMPUTER GAMES) (ENFORCEMENT) (AMENDMENT) BILL
House COUNCIL
Activity Second Reading
Members STRONG
Date 19 April 2005
Page 421
19 April 2005 COUNCIL
Page 421
Second reading
Ms HADDEN (Ballarat) -- I am going to be a bit of a fly in the ointment tonight, and do so for two reasons. I am not going to vote for this bill. I will neither support it nor will I vote for it. I am registering now to every member in this house that I intend to have my dissent vote registered. I do so for two reasons. It is all very well to pander to the powerful lobby groups that get into the minister's ear and forget about the children. What about the vulnerable young people in the state and what about the vulnerable children?
Where is their voice? Nowhere.
If this state had an independent commissioner for children, I might be satisfied that this bill had at least crossed the commissioner's desk, but it has not. This state has not followed in Tasmania's footsteps, and until it does I will make sure that the Attorney-General, the Minister for Children and the Minister for Community Services in the other place get their act together in relation to the protection of children in this state and not just put all this spin in this material because I am absolutely sick of it.
No-one in my electorate even knows the bill is before the house. I have not had an opportunity to be properly briefed in relation to this bill.
I have done some quick research tonight over the last few hours and I am not impressed with it because again it is looking after the film-makers' interests, raising age of consent of a victim from 16 years to 18 years to pander to their profit-making ideals. Again, where is the voice of the children? I have not heard anyone speak on behalf of children or on behalf of young people who are exploited every day. Members express concern about Mr Baldy who is about to be released, probably into my electorate because Melbourne does not want him. We cannot put him anywhere in Melbourne because he would probably be too close to the house of some minister or member. Mr Baldy will probably be released into my electorate or into the Bendigo electorate because that is where the services are.
My electorate is very sensitive about this issue. As I said, members are concerned about Mr Baldy and about victims being scarred for life, and then they have the
Page 434
gall to come into the house and say, 'This
is fine. We will just tinker around the edges', or, as I think I heard a
previous speaker say, 'This is a focus on classification for
film-makers'. Where is the protection for the children? Where is the
voice for children in this state? I do not hear it and I am suitably
unimpressed.
Every member in this house ought to do some research on establishing an
independent commissioner for children. They ought to look at the
Tasmanian model. My very best friend, Mrs Patmalar Ambikapathy, was the
first Commissioner for Children in Tasmania. She was in that position
for four years. Her hair would curl if she saw this bill because a bill
that looks like being introduced into the house in Tasmania has to cross
the commissioner's desk first. There is no protection in this bill for
children. It raises the victim's age of consent from 16 to 18. It is
totally inappropriate.
When I read the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) Alert Digest No. 3 of 2005 I saw some grand statements, one of which refers to the International Labour Organisation and reads:
The ... government strongly supports
ratification of this convention. Promoting the physical, sexual,
emotional and psychological safety of all young people is a priority for
this government.
Again I ask: who is speaking for the children and young people in this
state? I have not heard anyone do so tonight, and I have not read it
anywhere. The issue has to be addressed pretty quickly by the
Attorney-General and the Minister for Children, who is also the Minister
for Community Services in the other place.
The second reason I am not supporting this bill is because it contains no social justice impact statement.
It contains no impact statement in relation to family and social issues that affect all Victorians -- not just rural and regional Victorians, but all Victorians. I have not been offered any timely or professional briefing on this crucial bill that will have a huge impact on young people and children. As I said, it actually raises the age of consent.
As an Independent member of Parliament it is my role to scrutinise bills that come into this house. I am not satisfied that this bill will in any way protect young people or children in this state. Children in the 16-to-18 age group are the most vulnerable in this state. Look at the child paedophiles, the child sex offenders, and then look at the age group and at how they groom them from a young age up to 16 and 18. I do know what I am talking about. Some members in this house ought to get out and talk to some of the defence lawyers, members of the bar council, and public prosecutors and hear about the impact of the exploitation of young people and children. They are vulnerable.
We are parliamentarians and it is our job to protect them. I do not see too much protection in this house tonight.
The other aspect of the bill I want to focus on is the fact that the Labor government spouted and spruiked about integrity in public life, about its plan to restore the credibility, integrity and effectiveness of Parliament and win back public respect for the political process. I am an Independent and no-one has told me that this bill is a good thing for young people and children in this state. My view is that this bill will not in any way create stronger or safer communities. In fact it might do exactly the opposite.
As I said, I am not supporting the bill for those two reasons. This is a house of review. We are not a rubber stamp; we do not just trot out the set lines that are given to us by the media unit or the ministers' advisers. We should be thinking about what we are doing in this place.
Some of us are collecting a pretty handsome salary and we have to do better than we have to date. I can tell the house I am not impressed.
I am not going to vote for this bill for those two reasons. I will not support it. I think we had better have a long, hard look at ourselves and exactly what we really mean by looking after young people in this state, by protecting our vulnerable children and young people. I do not see this bill doing anything like that. In my view it looks after a powerful lobby group, the film-makers. The focus is on that. There is no balance. Where is the voice speaking for the children and young people? It is not there.
The PRESIDENT -- Order! The question is:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no.
Honourable members -- Aye.
Ms Hadden -- No.
Paul Harriss
Tas State
Member of the Legislative Council
Independent
Electorate: Huon
Attempted to prevent The Eros Association from sending him copies of their journal.
The Eros Association Inc
Media Release 12/2/06
MP’s Threat to Censor Parliamentary
Mail
A Tasmanian Member of the Legislative Council, Paul Harriss, has threatened to take legal action (and possibly contempt charges) to stop a national industry association from sending its newsletter to him.
In a letter to Australia’s national adult industry association in December, Mr Harriss MLC, claimed that the Eros Journal was being sent to him ‘unsolicited’ and was therefore illegal.
Eros Chief Executive, Fiona Patten said that her newsletter was not a commercial product and did not contain explicit imagery. “The Eros Journal is a professional communiqué from Australia’s adult retail industry that outlines industry policies, ethics and protocols in a non-jargonistic way”, she said. “I send a copy to Mr Harriss because my members in Tasmania want him to understand their views on industry issues that are, or may be, before the Tasmanian Parliament. If he chooses to ignore the industry’s views, then he can put the newsletter in the bin. But legal action to stop me from sending it to him shows Mr Harriss to be intolerant and unnecessarily aggressive toward a legal industry.”
Ms Patten said that any attempt to use ‘contempt’ powers by Mr Harriss to stop citizens or lobby groups from sending unsolicited submissions or views could well constitute a Contempt of Parliament in itself. She had written to the Chair of the Legislative Council’s Privileges Committee to complain about Mr Harriss’ actions and to ascertain whether or not his threat to stop information from entering the Parliament may constitute a contempt of the Parliament in itself. “As an elected member, it is his duty to accept unsolicited submissions”, she said. “That’s part of his job description. As long as a petition or letter or newsletter is not obscene or threatening, he has no right to threaten community or industry groups with legal action for sending it. If he is so offended by a newsletter that could be sold in every newsagent in the country, he is not suited to the rough and tumble of state politics”, she said.
Ms Patten said that the issue was of national significance and that the Council of Australian Governments should investigate how often community groups and individuals were threatened or cajoled by politicians into withdrawing or failing to present their views on issues, simply because they did not accord with that politician’s personal or party views.
The Eros Journal’s editor, Ms Yasmin Element, said she was shocked and offended at Mr Harriss’ tone. “His letter was rude and macho”, she said. “I never expected politicians to be like that’, she said. “He recently voted on a Bill to ban prostitution in Tasmania that could see some sex workers go to jail for up to 10 years. My magazine carries information that could have affected his vote on that issue. To turn around and threaten me for sending it to him is inconsiderate and unparliamentary”.
Media Contact: Fiona Patten: 0413 734 613
Mail PO Box 69 Deakin West ACT 2600 Ph 02 6285 2477 Fax 02 6282 1499 eros@eros.org.au
***
Robbie Swann
Eros Magazine Vol.7 No1
Tasmanian MP Threatens Eros
This censorship of sexual ideas in Australia has hit a new low. A Tasmanian politician has threatened Eros with legal action for sending him a copy of this journal. Although this is the first time such extreme censorship has been threatened, we are sometimes asked by members of parliament not to send them our journal. They do this by writing to us and asking to be taken off our mailing list, claiming that the journal is not requested and often that they find it offensive.
But we do not hold mailing lists of politician’s names. At the time of distribution, Eros examines whether or not there is an issue in the journal that is relevant to its members interests in a given jurisdiction and if there is, we simply mail directly to the members currently listed on the Parliament House web site of that jurisdiction. We want them to see those issues but if they do not want it when it arrives, they are at liberty to simply put it in the bin. But to ask us not to send it in the first place is an abrogation of their responsibility as an elected representative that they be open and accessible to issues that affect their constituents.
The Eros Journal is not sexually explicit and neither is it ‘offensive’ or ‘objectionable’ under the definitions used in the Classification Act. It clearly has nothing like the impact of Unrestricted magazines in newsagents like People or Picture magazines, and it deals with serious issues of sex and censorship. That a member of parliament would be so outraged and offended by it that they would censor the publication by threatening legal action for sending it, is in itself a form of ‘book-burning’. And yet that is exactly what Eros has been threatened with by Tasmanian Upper House member, Graham Harriss (see letter).
Mr Harrass complained about having been sent Vol 6 #4 of the Eros Journal, unsolicited.
Our argument to Mr Harriss is that by virtue of the fact that he has offered himself up for public office, he not only has a responsibility to consider all lawful material that is put before him but that he cannot claim that lawful mail of any kind addressed to him, is ‘unsolicited’. As a member of parliament, it is part of his job to accept unsolicited mail from constituents and those representing them.
His threat raises serious issues around the rights and responsibilities of members of parliament to hear dissenting voices in their community and also the use of Contempt of Parliament charges to censor legitimate community views.
Clearly Mr Harriss has no action available to him under the Post and Telecommunications Act. He is not being harassed or threatened by receiving the Eros journal. Clearly his threat then can only be a resort to use the Contempt powers.
It would be easy for Eros to acquiesce in this situation and agree to this man’s unreasonable request. But how many other groups will he threaten in the same way? His maiden speech in the Tasmanian parliament was almost totally consumed with conservative anti-gay and anti-lesbian rhetoric. Would he similarly invoke the Contempt powers for these groups if they sent him Lesbians on the Loose or the Sydney Star Observer? And what about anti-logging groups who disagree with him on clear felling old growth forests; atheists who want him to get rid of prayers before parliament or Republicans who don’t want the Queen?
No. Mr Harriss should not be able to tell different community groups that they can or cannot send him mail on issues that they want to raise. In a democracy everyone has the right to send an elected member their point of view.
Mr Harriss should read his maiden speech again. Remarkably, he finished it by saying, “ we ought to defend to the death, as Voltaire said, people's right to their view and their right to have their say.” Did he have a brainsnap over our last editorial on Tasmanian prostitution laws …or is he just another hypocrite in the parliament?
Write to him and let him know what you think: paul.harriss@parliament.tas.gov.au
By Robbie Swan - First published January 2006
Dennis Hood
SA State
Member of the Legislative Council
Family First
Electorate: Huon
In 2006 he pushed to have the rating of Vincent Gallo's THE BROWN BUNNY reviewed.
Quoted from:
Sex
movie 'should be X-rated'. Adelaide Advertiser 04.05.06
Family First MLC Dennis Hood said the view of fellatio involving a fully erect penis "was pornographic".
"If that's not pornography, then what is? Any depiction of actual sex is clearly X-rated," Mr Hood said.
SA is the only Australian state with the power to ban movies within its borders. However, Mr Hood does not want to go that far.
He called on the Attorney-General Michael Atkinson to order a review of the film's classification status.
."There is a very good case for reclassification," Mr Hood said.