Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. I. Cohen: Madam President.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. I. Cohen.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: Madam President, the Hon. I. Cohen was not on the list.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. I. Cohen sought the call, and I gave it to him.

The Hon. I. COHEN [2.30 p.m.]: I move:

That this debate be now adjourned until the next sitting day.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [2.31 p.m.]: I oppose the motion to adjourn the debate and wish to speak against it. I understand that under the standing orders I have that right. The Hon. I. Cohen has moved that this debate be adjourned. My concern in taking such a preliminary strike against a bill that is under way is that it would not allow members to make the points that they wish to make in continuation of the debate. For example -

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: What do you make of the fact that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile told us this morning that because his wife was sick he was going to adjourn debate on the bill?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: That is not what he did.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: No, it is not, but it is what he told a number of people.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile did not tell me that. As far as I am concerned, this is an important debate, which I prepared for.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: That is probably because you were part of organising this filibuster with him.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: If the Hon. Jan Burnswoods wishes to make a point about the adjournment of the debate on this bill, there is a procedure that she can adopt, and I certainly welcome the honourable member’s contribution. It is one thing to sit on the bench of this Chamber, snipe at everything that members say, and put base motives on what members are doing in this House, but it is another to actually contribute to the debate. A number of members of this House wished to contribute to debate on this bill, and those members’ names were written on a list that was provided to the President. I am one of those members. I noticed that the Hon. I. M. Macdonald’s name was ahead of my name on that list, and the names of several of my colleagues were also on the list.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: The Hon. D. F. Moppett was still speaking.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It is true that the Hon. D. F. Moppett had not concluded his contribution, but, unfortunately, for very important reasons - reasons that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods probably would not understand - he cannot be with us this afternoon. That sometimes happens to members, and we have to accept that. The Hon. Elaine Nile is not with us today because she is sick. Members must
Page 2723
have a certain amount of compassion when it comes to such matters.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You don’t have any compassion for the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti, who will not be here next week.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I have a lot of compassion for the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti. I had a most enjoyable farewell lunch with him today; it was one of the better moments. We told some stories about various people around the place, although I cannot say who was on the agenda. The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti is very restrained in these matters, and he would not divulge such things. He is like a fundamentalist doctor when it comes to subjects such as that: you would not be able to prise the information from his lips.

The Sexual Offence Damages Bill is a very important bill. At one stage there was a populist belief in the National Party room - this would probably surprise the Hon. Jan Burnswoods - that explicit movies are directly associated with an increase in sexual assaults. That is a widely held belief in the community, and it is one matter that I wanted to speak about today had the Hon. I. Cohen not moved to adjourn the debate.

The Hon. I. Cohen: Point of order: The Hon. D. J. Gay is not speaking to the point of order; he is speaking to the second reading debate on the bill. The Hon. D. J. Gay rose on a point of order on my motion to adjourn this debate to another day.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: To the point of order: At the very moment that the Hon. I. Cohen sprang to his feet I indicated that this was one of the important points that we needed to make. The Hon. I. Cohen should realise that when he undertakes a political move such as this in an attempt to tamper with the procedures of the House, under the sessional orders members have a right to speak for up to 20 minutes about whether the House should adjourn the debate.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: To the point of order: The Hon. I. Cohen, when taking the point of order, suggested that the Hon. D. J. Gay was speaking to the point of order. Clearly, the honourable member has got it wrong, on two counts. The Hon. D. J. Gay is speaking to the adjournment of the debate and not to the point of order. However, he has just spoken on the point of order. I believe that the Hon. D. J. Gay has very much focused on the issue at hand, that is, whether this debate should be adjourned. Other members wish to speak in this debate. I believe that the Hon. D. J. Gay has been extremely accurate in his remarks in speaking to the adjournment of this debate.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Hon. D. J. Gay was speaking to the adjournment motion, but he was straying into the actual subject of the debate itself. I ask the Hon. D. J. Gay to address himself purely to the adjournment motion, and not to the bill.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate your ruling, and I believe that it is an appropriate ruling. Maybe we should put that in the book.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: It is very nice of you to say something like that.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I am a magnanimous type of chap.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Are you really? We would never have guessed that.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I know that the Hon. Jan Burnswoods is trying to tempt me away from speaking to the adjournment of the debate, and I will resist that temptation. I was making the point that we need a degree of continuity in order for the debate to be relevant. The points I wished to make follow on directly from the points that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile made.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile, for instance, made the point in his contribution that experts were needed. I repeat that when the Opposition makes its contribution it will oppose his point of view. Immediately following the contribution of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile I need to be able to indicate how one becomes an expert, so that it has relevance in the debate. Does one become an expert by reading and watching material, as the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has suggested? The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti takes enough frivolous points of order. I would rather he did not do so now.

The Hon. R. T. M. Bull: It wastes too much time. You only have 10 minutes left.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I ask honourable members not to take another point of order.

The Hon. A. B. Kelly: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti takes vexatious points of order.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: At least I appreciate the support I am getting from Government members. It is a pity that members of the Opposition were not
Page 2724
so supportive. The matter is serious and deserves due consideration. The Opposition understands the concerns of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile and suspects that if anyone could be branded an expert those honourable members could. I do not say that in any mean way. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile has read and seen more material than I probably ever will. So that is probably how one becomes an expert. The qualification of an expert in depraved material is one of the concerns that the Opposition has with the bill. How does one delineate what an expert is? It is not a subject in which one can quickly get a degree.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Are you an expert?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: No, I do not pretend to be an expert. I have learnt much more on the subject since I have been in the Legislative Council than I ever knew as a farmer at Crookwell. My knowledge has been expanded exponentially. I congratulate and take my hat off to Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile on extending my education.

The Hon. Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans: Point of order: The honourable member has not only strayed from the topic of the adjournment motion; he has strayed from the topic of the previous substantive debate and is waffling on into the gallery. Surely there is a point at which the honourable member must be called on to talk about something useful to the House. The subject being discussed at the moment is the adjournment motion of the Hon. I. Cohen.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: To the point of order: So long as my colleague is dealing with the question of the adjournment, relating his remarks to the adjournment and drawing his arguments from time to time back to that matter, he is clearly in order. He is allowed to say why he believes his case should be successful. The debate is fairly wide ranging. I believe that he has not strayed from the motion as put. He is arguing the negative case.

The Hon. R. D. Dyer: To the point of order: The Hon. D. J. Gay has speculated at considerable length on the meaning of the term "expert". Without speculating on the meaning of that term, I put it to the House that it has absolutely nothing to do with the motion to defer debate on the bill that this House has been debating. The Hon. D. J. Gay is clearly trifling with your previous ruling, and I would respectfully ask you to request him to direct his remarks to the motion before the House, namely, whether the debate ought to be adjourned.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: To the point of order: The Government will not support the adjournment motion moved by the Hon. I. Cohen. To stop this farcical situation continuing, we should get the adjournment matter over and done with, get on with the debate and finish it.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: To the point of order: I appreciate the comments of the Hon. I. M. Macdonald, but they are not relevant to the point of order. The point of order was whether my contribution was relevant to the adjournment motion. I contend that the contribution that I was making following your wise counsel earlier was certainly relevant to the matter of adjournment of the bill and deserved to be aired.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. It is quite clear that the Hon. D. J. Gay was transgressing Standing Order 81, which deals with digressing from the subject matter of the question. He should confine himself to speaking to the adjournment motion.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Thank you, Madam President. I concur with your ruling. I certainly will confine my comments to the adjournment.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You are wasting time.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Hon. Jan Burnswoods keeps interrupting. If she stopped interrupting my contribution, I would be able to finish more quickly.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You are distracted.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I am not easily distracted, but I find some people more distracting than others. The honourable member certainly is a great distraction to members of the Opposition. I believe that I have made enough of a contribution to the debate on the adjournment motion. I will save the rest of my remarks for my contribution to the second reading debate.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [2.46 p.m.]: I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Special Minister of State, and Assistant Treasurer said that debate on the bill can proceed. As I have noted in the past, it is a problem on Thursdays to get a proper speakers list for private members’ bills. I apologise for being unable to obtain one on this occasion.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You had a proper speakers list, which had your name on it and "adjournment". You told members what you were going to do, but then you did the opposite. The
Page 2725
speakers list was dead accurate. It said "F. Nile". You told most of the crossbench members what you were going to do and proceeded to do the opposite.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: I was unaware that other members wished to speak to the bill. I apologise. Usually the crossbenchers can determine if Government and Opposition members wish to contribute to debate on a private member’s bill. After I closed off the debate on the gambling bill some members said they would have liked to speak to the bill. I closed the debate by speaking in reply. However, the Hon. I. Cohen has taken a serious step, because the House has a carefully worked out formula for private members’ business.

The Hon. I. Cohen: But you said you were going to adjourn debate this morning.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: Under the formula a member of a party is in charge of a private member’s bill. It is a dangerous precedent for a member of the Greens to seek to adjourn debate of a Christian Democratic Party member’s bill.

The Hon. I. Cohen: Is that not what you said?

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE: It does not mean that another member can interfere with the conduct of that private member’s bill. That is the point I am making. The Hon. I. Cohen may have been trying to assist me and may have had good intentions, but it must be left to the member who introduces the bill or a member of that member’s party to control the passage of the bill. That is an important principle. If this motion were passed, I could adjourn a bill introduced by the Hon. I. Cohen or the Hon. A. G. Corbett. That type of ambush should not occur on private members’ days. Members must be allowed to retain control of their own bill in this House, particularly on private members’ days.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [2.50 p.m.]: It was clearly understood by me and many other honourable members that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would finish his contribution to the gambling bill and adjourn this bill because the Hon. Elaine Nile was away, and we would then debate the sexual offences bill today. That must have been the clear understanding of all in this Chamber, until some honourable members decided to derail that process.

I clearly am upset about the adjournment motion because I have done considerable work on the sexual offences bill and after today I will be absent, with leave, from the Chamber. I find it highly offensive that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile would make the speech that he just made - the speech of his lifetime, in my view. I am offended also by the behaviour of some other honourable members of this Chamber who would seek to adjourn this important debate.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [2.51 p.m.]: In speaking to the adjournment motion moved by the Hon. I. Cohen I note that he was not on the list of honourable members to speak and that the Hon. D. J. Gay and I were. However, I wish to speak to the formalities of the occasion. The reality is that earlier this year the House approved sessional orders relating to private members’ business to enable private members to prepare their bills. This House has, very meticulously, provided in the sessional orders a procedure to determine an order of precedence for those notices. The House is dealing with Private Members’ Business Item No. 4, the Sexual Offence Damages Bill, which is next in the order of precedence after the Gambling (Anti-Greed) Advertising Prohibition Bill.

In addition to providing for the order of precedence of private members’ business items, the sessional orders provide for Private Members Business Items outside the order of precedence. So I repeat that the House has meticulously provided a system whereby all honourable members have the opportunity to prepare the speeches on their items in advance. The sessional orders provide for a ballot to determine which items outside the order of preference will be included within the order of precedence.

That procedure, thus far, has worked extremely well - under your aegis, Madam President, it must be said. The motion to adjourn the debate is important because if it succeeds, the Sexual Offence Damages Bill will lose its place in the order of precedence that has been so carefully determined. Whilst this House has formally provided for an order of precedence, the adjournment motion moved by the Hon. I. Cohen stands to prejudice the equity of that order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I would like to point out to members that under the standing and sessional orders there is no such thing as a list of speakers. A member wishing to speak in a debate must rise and seek the call from the Chair. Standing Order 68 provides:

A Member desiring to speak shall rise in his place uncovered, and address himself to the Chair . . .

Motion for adjournment negatived.

Page 2726

The Hon. I. M. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.55 p.m.]: The Government does not support the Sexual Offence Damages Bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Elaine Nile. The bill conflicts with existing censorship laws, contradicts the provisions of a number of other statutes and creates confusion in relation to settled legal principles. These proposals pose difficulties if introduced alongside the existing national scheme for the classification of films, publications and computer games. The bill would put New South Wales out of step with the national classification scheme, to which New South Wales is a party.

The bill’s provisions go well beyond existing rights of action at common law. The bill has the potential to impact on a broad range of persons who publish, distribute, exhibit or sell material that is considered to be obscene within the definition of "offensive sexual material". Persons who may be caught by the provisions of the bill include, for example, newsagents, retailers, cinema operators and university lecturers. The bill will require the judiciary to act as censor in determining what material falls within that definition.

There is a national scheme in place, comprising Commonwealth and State legislation, which regulates the classification and distribution of films, publications and computer games. The Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 establishes the classification authorities, such as the Office of Film and Literature Classification, the classification board and the review board. Classification decisions are determined on the basis of guidelines that are approved by censorship Ministers and applied by officers in the Commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification experienced in the classification of a range of material.

The New South Wales Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 regulates the material that may be distributed within New South Wales and sets out the conditions applying to the sale or public exhibition of permitted material. The Commonwealth-State co-operative scheme receives broad community support.

The Government does not believe that it is appropriate also to attempt, as this bill does, to control the distribution of this material through civil action taken by crime victims. The principles underpinning classification decisions under the co-operative scheme are reflected in the national classification code, which is set out in the Commonwealth legislation. The code, which is designed to reflect contemporary community standards, states:

Adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want,

Minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them,

Everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive, and

The need to take account of community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence and the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

Under the national classification scheme, publications may be classified as either an unrestricted publication, a submittable publication, a restricted publication or a publication refused classification. Unrestricted publications include all general publications. Submittable publications are those publications likely to warrant restriction to adults. Such publications are required to be submitted to the Office of Film and Literature Classification for classification.

Restricted publications may be classified as a category 1 restricted publication or a category 2 restricted publication, with conditions on access, sale and display of the publication. Publications considered to be unsuitable for minors and likely to offend some sections of the adult community are classified in the restricted category.

Publications are refused classification if they depict child pornography; if matters of sex, drug addiction, crime, cruelty or violence are portrayed in a way which offends against standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; or if they promote, incite or instruct a matter of crime or violence.

The New South Wales Enforcement Act prohibits the sale in this State of publications which are refused classification. A similar classification regime operates for the classification of films, videotapes and computer games. A number of aspects of the bill warrant comment in relation to inconsistencies with the approach taken under the current law.

The proposed bill will cover all material of a sexual nature, regardless of its classification status, if a nexus can be established between the material and an assault on a victim. The term "obscene" is open to a very subjective interpretation. It would mean that the bill could cover works of fiction and non-fiction and also, for example, media reporting of details of sexual crimes that result in so-called copycat crimes.

Page 2727

The broad and uncertain scope of the definition of "offensive sexual material" means that material which may legally be distributed under the existing classification regime could, under the bill, be found to have caused a sexual offence for which the distributor of that material may be made liable. There is a clear conflict with the national classification scheme. If a complainant establishes that material meets the required standard of obscenity, he or she will need to establish on the balance of probabilities that it was the cause of the offence. There are obvious difficulties associated with proving that merely being exposed to certain material caused a person to subsequently commit an offence.

At common law, causation is taken to mean that the action was both reasonably foreseeable and was the proximate cause of the Act. Causation is thus determined in light of the particular circumstances of a case. However, the bill defines where material is considered to have caused an offence for the purposes of the bill. Clause 6 states:

. . . if the person who did an act that constitutes the offence was exposed to the material and the material motivated the person to do the act.

Neither "exposed" nor "motivated" is defined in the bill. In criminal matters the courts are familiar with such terms as "aid", "abet", "counsel" or "procure". Similarly, in civil proceedings, "cause" has been the subject of judicial consideration. However, the terms "motivated" and "exposed" are imprecise and open to interpretation, and they may well extend liability beyond that which would otherwise apply.

Clause 7 provides that an action may be brought even if the offender cannot be located or identified or is dead. It is not clear how a court could be satisfied that the relevant material motivated the offender to commit an offence when the offender cannot be identified. Similarly, proof of motivation where an offender cannot be found or is dead would be difficult, if not impossible, unless a wide interpretation of "motivated" was adopted.

Clause 11 provides that the damages recoverable for the benefit of the estate of a deceased person on a cause of action arising under the proposed legislation may include exemplary damages, otherwise known as punitive damages. This provision overrides the provisions of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944. Section 2 (2) of that Act specifically prohibits the award of such damages where a cause of action survives for the benefit of the estate of a diseased person. Exemplary damages are usually awarded with the intention of punishing the offender rather than compensating the victim. The proposals in this bill are therefore inconsistent with this approach.

The bill also proposes to vary the provisions of the Limitation Act 1969 relating to damages for personal injury founded on breach of duty. Section 18A of the Limitation Act provides that after 1 September 1990 an action for damages for personal injury is not maintainable if brought three years after the date on which the cause of action first accrues. Section 19 of that Act similarly limits actions arising under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 by virtue of the death of a person.

The Limitation Act also gives the court the discretionary power to make a further extension of the limitation period for up to five years in certain circumstances. Clause 12 of the bill overrides the established limitation regime applying to actions for damages for personal injury. Clause 12 provides that in relation to the cause of action created by the bill, the limitation period, as set out in sections 18A and 19 of the Limitation Act, is to be read as six years instead of the existing three years. The bill poses many more problems than it provides solutions. As I have said, it is not supported by the Government.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [3.04 p.m.]: The Sexual Offence Damages Bill endeavours to identify and establish the nexus between pornographic material and subsequent acts of violence and its relationship to civil recovery of damages for an act of violence committed after exposure to pornographic material.

It would come as no surprise to honourable members that I have had a longstanding interest in the steady increase in acts of violence in our community. Over the past 15 years, I have noticed a growing trend in the commission of acts of violence, particularly among young people. Such acts were virtually unheard of in our community 15 years ago. It is a matter of concern that the age of offenders has decreased and the severity of the attacks has increased.

We need to examine the changes that have occurred in our society, such as freedom of access to pornography and other matters I will refer to later, and whether the Parliament has good cause to look at what the Hon. Elaine Nile is endeavouring to do with this bill. I wish to tell the House about a very ugly incident that occurred some years ago when I was a police officer stationed at Eastwood Police Station. A young woman had left a club in the Epping area with her boyfriend and another man. Upon walking out into the cold air, she realised she had to go to the toilet.

Page 2728

The woman was unable to re-enter the club, and, because of the severe nature of her need, she could not wait until she got home. Her boyfriend suggested that she go around the corner. In the darkness she saw two feet appear in front of her. When she looked up a fellow was standing in front of her. She originally thought it was her boyfriend, but then realised it was not.

The male person had a knife approximately 12 inches long, a rather lethal weapon. He told her what he intended to do with the knife. I will not repeat his ugly words; I will leave it to your imagination. The woman screamed, and her boyfriend ran around the corner to her and was stabbed in the abdomen. His friend also ran around the corner and was stabbed through the hand. The offender then ran away.

Having received some information, a couple of days later police attended a home in nearby Epping. Honourable members may sometimes think that the people depicted in some American television shows could only exist in the writer’s imagination. I will tell members what confronted me in that house at Epping. It was without doubt one of the most frightening and chilling experiences I have ever had.

The man had lived with his mother, until her death, in the Epping home, which was probably worth $400,000 to $500,000. He had spent all his inheritance, all his belongings had been sold off, and he had no money left. During the day the house was in total darkness; the curtains had been replaced with black plastic. The only furniture that remained was bedroom furniture in two rooms.

In the front bedroom of the home there was a bed with no sheets, a television set, a video recorder and a number of polystyrene boxes full of hundreds of X-rated pornographic films of a heterosexual nature. In another bedroom there was a television, a video, boxes full of pornographic films of a transsexual or violent nature, and women’s clothing. I thought that another person was living in the home but it was not until further investigations were conducted that it was ascertained that the fellow lived a dual life.

Scattered throughout both bedrooms - and I apologise for my crudity, but this is reality - there were a lot of used condoms discarded on the floor. Together with other officers, I conducted a search of the rest of his home. Even in his cornflakes and tea packets he had prepared collages of pornographic pictures and put them inside the packets. When one opened any door throughout the house one was confronted with collages of violent sexual pictures from magazines. That fellow was one of the most evil men I have had the misfortune to meet, and that indicates a type of person that is in the community.

I am concerned that there may well be a relationship between the existence of pornographic and violent videos and acts of violence committed upon other people. This bill follows current legislation in the United States of America whereby victims of sexual assault or sex crimes can take civil action against pornographers if a relationship between the act and the pornographic film, video or whatever is proven.

The Opposition intends to move to refer the bill for inquiry by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. I am sure that virtually all members of the Opposition support me when I question the ease with which so many of our young children can access violent videos - not necessarily of a sexual nature - and video games, and the way those violent games are spreading throughout the community. They have given our young children the impression that killing one another with guns and handguns or by hand-to-hand combat is somehow the norm.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile should be commended for introducing this bill, but the Opposition is concerned about a number of its measures. In essence the Opposition believes that this Parliament should examine certain conduct, whether it be of a sexual or violent nature, and its correlation with pornographic film and access to videos and violent crime in New South Wales.

The Hon. I. Cohen: You said he was the most evil man you had ever met. What was his crime?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: Do the words "attempted murder" mean anything? If the Hon. I. Cohen had listened to my contribution -

The Hon. I. Cohen: I didn’t hear you.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: It was attempted murder. He stabbed a man through the stomach with a knife. That is an offence!

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: He did not hear the beginning.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: I apologise if he did not hear the beginning. I thought the Hon. I. Cohen was being facetious because the man had pornographic videos. I ask honourable members to consider whether there was a relationship between that man having access to such material and the act he committed.

Page 2729

The Hon P. T. Primrose: Are you saying he is a cornflakes cereal killer?

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: The Hon. P. T. Primrose is trying to be flippant by saying he is a cereal killer, that he is a cornflakes killer. Members of the Government who do not care want to ridicule the Opposition for raising such questions. They want all laws thrown away and open access to this material. The Opposition will not stand by and allow members of the Government to push their mealy-mouthed ideas on the people of New South Wales. This issue needs to be examined as a matter of urgency. I move:

That the question be amended by omitting all words after "That" and inserting instead "this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice for inquiry and report."

I ask all members to support my amendment.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN [3.15 p.m.]: I support the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment to the Sexual Offence Damages Bill. The object of the bill is to allow the recovery of damages in respect of the death of or injury to a person resulting from, or arising out of, an act constituting a sexual offence - such as rape - from persons who produce, distribute, exhibit, broadcast, disseminate or sell pornographic material which motivated the offender to commit the offence.

The bill deals with a serious social matter and it should be referred to the committee to examine its implications in detail and to report back to this House. There is no doubt that violence in our society is seen by a lot of people as the normal way to live. They live on a daily diet of unduly violent videos and movies and now, with the Internet, they have access to a whole range of material that almost desensitises them to the impact of violence.

At the moment our society is in transition as great changes are occurring in the social environment of the world in which we live. In the old days the family was the basic building block upon which our society was established. The family unit provided protection, taught values and responsibilities and engendered a mutual commitment to support one another. It was almost a self-insurance policy to overcome the adversities that people confronted. Outside the family unit was the extended family of aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews.

In those days many people did not move from town to town, State to State or country to country, and extended families, communities and townships took on a very important role in the development of attitudes and values. Australian towns had the normal support infrastructure of priests, padres and chaplains, who provided the moral education that was required to live in an orderly society. The local police also made sure that if somebody drifted off the rails they were directed back onto the right path.

In those days, particularly in extended families, young ones felt a sense of shame if they did something unacceptable to the rules, regulations and values of their local community. It was probably easier for them at that time, as perhaps their worst influence was the messages they might hear in the top 40 hits on the valve wireless on a Saturday night. It was an orderly society based on the family unit. I came from a stable environment that enabled me to develop my own values.

Society is changing, and it is changing rapidly. We cannot and should not stop change; we should embrace change. As members of Parliament we should monitor that change and put in place mechanisms necessary to protect people from each other. Sometimes young people do not realise that they need to be protected from themselves. Years ago when I was a teenager growing up, a daily diet of cigarette advertising influenced me and many others to take up cigarette smoking because it was the cool thing to do.

Sportsmen, movie stars and everyone we saw on this new thing called television were smoking. Every second television advertisement was for Peter Stuyvesant, Marlboro or another brand of cigarettes. Basically, the advertisements showed us that we could be like sportsmen and movie stars and live that sort of life if we smoked cigarettes. What did we do? We smoked cigarettes because it was the cool thing to do.

Our parents, brothers, sisters and mates smoked cigarettes. Smoking cigarettes involved adventure because we were not allowed to buy cigarettes; we had to sneak them or get an older person to buy them for us. That was seen as a rebellious thing to do, and most people did it. The adverse health impacts of cigarette smoking were not known until much later. Some people are simply too tough to be affected by cigarette smoking.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Like the honourable member!

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: No, I had to give up cigarettes because I was not tough enough to smoke. I am referring to the Hon. J. R. Johnson. Cigarette smoking would not have any impact on the
Page 2730
Hon. J. R. Johnson. A daily diet of cigarette advertising had an impact on us; we thought smoking was acceptable behaviour in society. It was regarded as cool and sophisticated, depending on the brand of cigarettes smoked.

Peter Stuyvesant was the socially acceptable brand and Marlboro was the macho brand. Cigarette advertisements influenced our behaviour and attitudes. Society is now paying a heavy price for that diet, because people are suffering greatly, both financially and healthwise. I could not guess the cost of that daily diet of cigarette advertising on our overburdened health service.

We must put in place an education program to counter the advertising campaign that was prolific 10 or 15 years ago. We need to educate young people about the adverse aspects of cigarette smoking before they start smoking. In today’s society we want to give young people the freedom to choose whether to smoke. It is okay if young people want to smoke but they should wait until they are 18 before buying a packet of cigarettes.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: This bill is about sexual offences, not smoking.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I know that. I am talking about the influence of attitudes. We are saying to young people that they should wait until they are 18, when they have been through the education system and are old enough and mature enough to make a choice about smoking. If young people choose to go down the route of smoking cigarettes, they need to know that there will be certain adverse impacts; if they choose not to go down that route they need to know that there will be many benefits.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Get back to the bill.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I am returning to the bill, which is about influencing attitudes.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It’s not about influencing attitudes.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: The bill is about the responsible influence of attitudes, and I am giving the House an example of that. As we do not know what impact pornographic material has on the minds of young people, this bill should be referred to a committee so that experts can be called to give evidence. I am not saying that pornographic material is good or bad; I am saying that we are not qualified to decide whether this bill should be passed by the House.

The bill should be referred to a committee to hear evidence from experts. We can then debate the material based on information obtained from a range of people. The Leader of the Opposition gave an example of an influence. In that case the behaviour probably did not result from an influence. However, it sounds like the person involved should have been picked up by the mental health system. A daily diet of pornographic material would not have helped.

Cigarette smoking is a good analogy because society is now suffering from the adverse impacts of cigarette advertising. It is often said that people have been desensitised to violence and so on. In this changing society there are many different family units. I will not pass judgment on whether a specific family unit is right or wrong; some traditional family units are bad and some non-traditional family units are good. We need to examine that.

These days many young people do not have an extended family or the sense of community we used to have, and they get their instruction from television. The highest-rating shows are not evening news and current affairs programs but soap operas such as Blue Heelers. Every day between 500,000 and one million people watch these programs, which create a false expectation of life.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Do they cause rapes?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: There are a lot of rapes on these programs. If these programs depict rape as something that is okay, young people watching them will think that it is okay. Are the programs responsible for rapes that occur in society, or are the people who aired the material which creates the impression that rape is okay responsible?

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: How do we prove that?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: I do not know how we can prove it, but referring the bill to a committee is a start. I am talking from experience. The Hon. R. S. L. Jones knows that my daughter was raped, which is the reason I entered Parliament. At the time of the rape my daughter was attending Mitchell College at Bathurst. She was having fun and doing well at college. One night she was returning from a rugby function with her boyfriend. As she walked across the lawn to enter a unit a bloke came out, held a knife at her throat and raped her. It was a traumatic experience for my family.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Was he caught?

Page 2731

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Yes, he was caught the next morning. The case was in the justice system for two years.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: What happened to him?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: He was sentenced to three years with a non-parole period of 18 months; he was out in six months and back in gaol a couple of months later. We have worked our way through the trauma and my daughter is okay. After the rape she had to leave university and return to live with us in Campbelltown. Jill and my twin daughters had to look after her. She used to get nervous rashes. She lost contact with all her friends and went through all these behaviours. The support of our family unit helped her to recover.

Eventually she returned to university and finished her degree, and she is doing well now. The two or three years after the rape were traumatic. I do not know that bloke’s background, but I do know the outcome, from personal experience. At the end of the two-year period, because I felt that the system of justice was far out of whack with community needs, I said to Sharon, "You go and live your life now. I will try to do something about the system."

It was then that I made the decision to get involved in politics. As a result, here I am. I have an interest in this area because in a way I have been a victim. That is why I do not believe that we should rush debate on the issue. It should be considered in a committee, and I support the amendment foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not normally watch the type of material being discussed, but occasionally one sees glimpses of it. It is horrific. One could not watch the story right through.

People now have access to much more information through the world wide web, the Internet, and so on. There is a new call for social leadership in this country. It is really needed. It is based on social responsibility. A lot of the language that is emerging from both sides of politics is about mutual obligations and reciprocal responsibilities. We tell unemployed people that if we pay them the dole they have an obligation to work harder and to access training schemes to gain employment.

On the other hand, we are saying to large corporations, the economic rationalists, the capitalists - whatever one likes to call them - that they have a reciprocal responsibility to society because government and bureaucrats are not fixing social problems. We can provide the guidelines, and that is what we should be doing. The committee would receive expert advice to set the boundaries. Corporations and companies have a social obligation.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: You are not suggesting that rape, pillaging and burning started with videos, are you?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: No, I am not.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: And that all men who become involved in this sort of stuff are as a result of some sort of -

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: No, I am not saying that for a second.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: I am pleased about that. I was worried. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile thinks that.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: No, you are verballing Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. I have spoken with Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile on this issue. However, I will say that the level of violence in society is greater since the introduction of that type of material.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It is not.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Get out! These people have no shame.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What about the Vikings?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: What about the Vikings?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Rape, pillaging and burning all the time.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: And they were doing it without television, too.

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: Is that right?

The Hon. I. Cohen: Did the Indonesian militia have videos?

The Hon. C. J. S. LYNN: That is a very interesting point. The Indonesian militia do not have videos but they have a different sort of mental conditioning, just as the Nazis did. We are talking about the influencing of attitudes, brainwashing - call it what one likes. That is what the Indonesians are responding to, not to videos. I am saying that in
Page 2732
our modern society this is a possible cause and we need to investigate it in detail. I believe that we could probably prove a relationship between this type of material and sexual assault and violence.

People can be influenced. If people have a daily diet of what we would consider abnormal behaviour, they will consider it normal behaviour. If they commit that sort of offence it is not their fault; it is a result of our irresponsibility because we have not examined the issue in detail and set guidelines and parameters. As I said, the modern social language from both sides of politics is about reciprocal responsibility and mutual obligation. The producers of this sort of material ought to take that on board.

They are putting the stuff out directly to theatres and television sets. It is being absorbed into people’s conscious minds, and from there, into their subconscious minds. It is influencing attitudes. How do we influence attitudes? I do not know the word to describe some of the stuff that some people are subjected to. As leaders in the community, we have a responsibility to ensure - [Time expired.]

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD [3.35 p.m.]: The purpose of this bill is to allow civil claims by victims in a court of law. In general, I think that victims of crime need much more support, and providing another avenue of potential redress is a good idea. The object of the Sexual Offence Damages Bill is to allow the recovery of damages in respect of the death of or injury to a person resulting from an act constituting a sexual offence such as rape, as it was once known, from persons who produce, distribute, exhibit or sell offensive sexual material which motivated the offender to commit the offence.

The bill defines "offensive sexual material" as material - including books, magazines and films - which depicts or describes sexual behaviour and which may be obscene or depicts a child in an offensive way or depicts a person being subjected to violence in a sexual context. The most commonly depicted violence of this type in pornography is violence against women.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: What is "obscene"?

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD: Many things are obscene, and sometimes those things are uttered even by members of this House.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: We each make our own judgment about what is obscene.

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD: We do. Some have good judgment and some have bad judgment, of all things. The bill defines a "sexual offence" as a prescribed sexual offence under the Crimes Act 1900 such as sexual assault and any violent offence committed at or about the time of that offence. This will include the offence which was known as rape in New South Wales but which is now dealt with by New South Wales law as a form of sexual assault.

Many in our society are becoming increasingly concerned about the effects that violent and pornographic films, videos and literature are having on children and young adults, or even more mature people who may already be affected by a form of psychosis, leaving their minds extremely vulnerable and dangerously open to suggestion.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Does that include you?

The Hon. D. E. OLDFIELD: It takes one to know one! Such community concern needs to be heeded. At the very least, these concerns must be aired and considered. I wondered whether I should mention what I am about to mention, but I have decided that it is important for us as representatives of the people to refer to our experiences or the experiences of people we know.

People need to know that we understand what has been suffered by many in society with whom we are closely connected. I refer to the types of offences which the bill attempts to preclude. Unfortunately, I have had two girlfriends and two relatives - four people in all with whom I have been closely associated during my life - who have been sexually assaulted. I am not happy about that situation. I am a member of the community who has the types of concerns I have mentioned.

Many people have been closely associated with those who have suffered vicious attacks. Of course, the impact on us is in no way as weighty as the impact on the victims. Although pornographic material is classified by the censors so that it will not get into the hands of young people, it does. How can anyone seriously believe that censor ratings do the job that is truly needed? We all know that they do not. Once the material is sold or hired to an adult, it can fall into the hands of young people and adversely influence them - in much the same way as a speech from the Hon. R. S. L. Jones would adversely influence them.

Many people in the Police Service, the community and medical fields strongly believe that
Page 2733
constant exposure to violent or sexually explicit material, whether on television or in magazines, harms the mental development of young minds and those who are not capable of handling exposure to such things. In some cases it is probably sustainable that offensive sexual material has been the trigger factor in leading people to commit crimes of violence or sexual violence.

That is certainly the belief of many members of the community, particularly the victims and their families. The victims are the most important people here, and they must be considered at all cost. There is no doubt that the broad and sometimes dangerously imaginative minds of writers and movie makers provide the basis of ideas that would never have been formulated. We are all familiar with the concept of the copycat. I conclude by reiterating the point that concerns are widespread and deserve careful consideration. I support the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. D. J. GAY [3.41 p.m.]: I indicated earlier that I wished to contribute to debate on this bill. I support the amendment, for several very important reasons. Honourable members may be surprised to hear that I agree not only with the President’s ruling earlier today, but also with some of the comments of the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It is not a Liberal-National debate.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I hark back to Alexander the Great. He was a man who knew how to rape, plunder, pillage and bugger. What videos did he ever watch? Absolutely none at all. The suggestion that such a person must have his or her mind polluted by videos simply does not add up. In the Dark Ages, the Marquis de Sade certainly had a little bit of reading material that he distributed, but he was not one to pull out the porno flick; he was able to manage without it.

Such arguments trivialise the debate, because the situation is that we must show a certain amount of concern. A lot of companies, including cigarette companies, alcohol companies, and companies that are very street smart spend a lot of money on advertising. They would not be spending that money if they were not able to influence minds. Establishing the precedent that the audio-visual media - which is extremely influential on young minds as far as alcohol, cigarettes -

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: What about South Park?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Even South Park. The amendment to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice is quite appropriate.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: We should be protecting the Hon. R. D. Dyer on this one -

The Hon. D. J. GAY: The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti has raised a very important point: that we probably should protect the young, innocent minds of the Hon. R. D. Dyer and the Hon. J. F. Ryan. No other member of this House is more innocent, naive or gullible than the Hon. J. F. Ryan, and we should certainly protect his mind.

The Hon. J. F. Ryan: I am on that wretched committee.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: I am concerned about the presence on that committee of the Hon. J. F. Ryan - a young Baptist family man from the western suburbs of Sydney. We certainly should protect his mind. I am concerned about the amount of violence that is depicted on television. It really frightens me. However, I do not know whether it actually incites people to go out and perpetrate crimes.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Why do you watch it?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: That is a fair question. I try to avoid watching television. But a series is difficult to avoid. A program such as Sex in the City is pretty innocent compared to some of the violence we see on television.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: I have never seen that program.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Well, you probably need to see it. I am sorry, you would not need to see it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: Hatzistergos is on the committee too. He does not want his mind to be polluted.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: It has been pointed out that the Hon. J. Hatzistergos is also a member of the committee.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: It will ruin his marriage.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: Ruin his marriage?

Page 2734

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That’s right.

The Hon. D. J. GAY: We should be protecting a young man like that. Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile have seen a lot of this material.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: How do you know they have seen a lot of this material?

The Hon. D. J. GAY: They have told us that they have seen a lot of this material. Have members noticed that Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is still the same calm, sensible, gentle, well-natured man that we have always known? In fact, he is a man of great refinement, and he has a great sense of humour. He has watched as many of these videos as any member of this House has, and it has not affected him. But we cannot take the risk. It is important that we sacrifice some of our youngest and our finest to watch these videos so that they can make their own judgment. For those reasons I support the amendment.

The Hon. M. I. JONES [3.46 p.m.]: I speak in support of two aspects of the Sexual Offence Damages Bill. The course of public morality will always seek its own path, irrespective of any influence by the Legislature.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: Who wrote that?

The Hon. M. I. JONES: I wrote it. During my life I have seen a revolution in sexual morality. The realisation that people have different sexual needs is reflected in the plethora of exotic material which is available on news stands, the Internet, in adult shops, and so on. The legalisation of prostitution and homosexuality illustrate greater public acceptance of the sexual needs of society, which will go on with or without legal sanction.

I do not agree with all aspects of the bill. For example, clause 3 (a) contains the word "obscene". What is obscene to one person is perhaps not obscene to another. I consider myself to be liberal, and I am sure that in this Chamber there will be as many opinions on what is obscene as there are members. However, I do not agree with the total abolition of censorship. Two issues appal me, and both are not adequately addressed. The first is pornography involving children, and the second is pornography involving violence. Both are unacceptable; both are beyond the pale.

The seizure of assets following drug convictions is a good move. Drug dealers and the purveyors of drugs who perhaps cannot be deemed dealers should be fully responsible at law for their activities and the results of their activities. Similarly, those who seek to profit from the harming of those who are vulnerable - that is, children, women and, I suppose, men, including young men - in an attempt to titillate, turn on or in any way to sexually gratify others, must be responsible at law for their activities.

I believe that the protection of the weak, especially children, is in no way a prudish position, even in a world of relaxed sexual values. The link between voyeur and sexual offender is very difficult to determine. But the protection of the vulnerable, especially women and children, must be a major priority.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS [3.50 p.m.]: I support the amendment to the Sexual Offence Damages Bill. That amendment seeks to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, which is chaired by a very able member of the upper House, the Hon. R. D. Dyer. The reason for the bill is a matter of concern to all honourable members. Whilst one cannot support the bill in its entirety, one expresses some sympathy with its objectives, which are to protect the weak and those who have suffered an injustice because of the motivation of an offender by pornographic material, whether by video film or whatever. The difficulty is proving the link between viewing of the pornographic material and the commission of the offence.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: It is difficult, isn’t it?

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: Yes. It is correct to say that it is very difficult. But I believe there are instances of the offender himself stating that he was motivated by such material.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: That is not necessarily evidence that would convince a court. It would be like you saying that you had been motivated by the Hon. J. H. Jobling.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: We are now indulging in semantics. The reality is that there are cases of offenders saying that they were motivated by sexually violent material.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: That is only because they are trying to get off a charge by making out they are victims.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: That may be, but there is adequate evidence in support of that link. I agree with honourable members that it is a very
Page 2735
difficult matter to prove. That is why the Opposition is not supportive of the legislation.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Why are you trying to get Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile off the hook?

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I believe Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile is motivated by a concern to protect the weak, and the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has reflected that very important concern. The history of sexual assault goes back to ancient times, to the Old Testament. As stated in the Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 20 of 1993:

Written laws governing sexual behaviour can be traced back two and a half thousand years to the Old Testament. In the patriarchal society of the time, women were essentially the property of men, namely the property of either the father if the woman was unmarried or the husband if the woman was married. As a result, when a woman was raped, it was the father or the husband who was "seen to have been wronged by the rape", more so than the woman herself . . .

In the 1970s substantial reforms were made in the area of sexual assault in Australia and many other Western countries. These reforms were largely prompted by an outcry against rape as a result of the Women’s Movement. The reforms included changes to the law, changes to police and court procedures, and the creation of sexual assault centres to cater for the needs of victims.

Other honourable members have referred to the fact that social mores have changed, and that they have changed in recent times at a good rate of knots. Legislators must try to relate to the change and not put their heads in the sand and pretend that there has been no change. Part of the change that has occurred stems from the arrival of video and other pornographic material in the form of films, et cetera. Australian Institute of Criminology statistics show that 14,138 incidents of sexual assault were recorded by police in Australia in 1997, or 76 victims per 100,000 population.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: How many were unrecorded?

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: Good point. I understand that evidence gathered by the international institute indicates that only a quarter are reported. That figure does not quite tie in with statistics of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. However, the Australian Institute of Criminology figure of 14,138 incidents amounts to approximately 1.6 recorded sexual assaults per hour across Australia. That is a matter that legislators have to come to grips with. We are talking about sexual assaults, not just assaults.

This bill, which was introduced by the Hon. Elaine Nile, attempts to come to grips with the problem. The Legislature has not yet found an adequate response to the increased statistics, because they have been increasing. In New South Wales there were 2,272 reported incidents in 1995, increasing to 2,973 in 1996 and 3,295 in 1997, then receding slightly in 1998 to 3,092.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It could be an error in the reporting process.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: Yes, it could be. The indications are that the change in social mores came with the arrival of new equipment that displays this violent sexual material. In this regard I might indicate that I think the bill would be more effective if it covered violence right across the board, not simply sexual violence, that has been motivated by such pornographic material.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It remains difficult to prove the connection.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: It is very difficult indeed. I know that honourable members of this House would agree with me that certain violent material that appears on our televisions, even though it might not have a sexual connotation, is material of which we are not proud, whether it is in the form of national movies, international movies or documentaries.

The Hon. I. M. Macdonald: National Geographic.

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: I am not talking about National Geographic. The honourable member, I am sure, as a man of the world, is well acquainted with the fact that much of the material on our televisions is unduly violent. That material does nothing for young people and the next generation. This bill proposes an Act to provide for the recovery of damages, in respect of the death of or injury to a person resulting from rape or other sexual offences, from persons who produce, distribute, exhibit or sell offensive sexual material that motivates an offender to commit an offence.

One would have to comment on certain aspects of the bill, such as the right of actions against persons responsible for offensive sexual material. Clause 5 of the bill defines a person responsible for producing and distributing material that is considered to have caused an offence. Clause 6, which causes a difficulty for most members in this House, states:

Page 2736

Offensive sexual material is considered to have caused an offence if the person who did an act that constitutes the offence was exposed to the material and the material motivated the person to do the act.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: How do you prove that?

The Hon. J. M. SAMIOS: It is very difficult to prove. However, where an offender admits that he replicated an act he saw on a video - for example, a person, after viewing a video depicting a rape of three people, commits the same form of rape and says he was motivated by the video - a presumption would be raised that would have to be answered. It is not said to be conclusive proof, but it raises a presumption.

Rather than going through this business of raising presumptions, it would be far better to not have pornographic material with a violent image in our community. Violence is a trespass against every individual. I commend the Hon. Elaine Nile on her endeavours to resolve an important issue concerning our society.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI [4.01 p.m.]: With my hand up the back of the Hon. D. J. Gay, I am able to say that rape, pillage and burning has occurred for centuries, probably eons. We are a less violent society now. Perhaps videos have caused our society to become less violent. The bill introduced by the Hon. Elaine Nile does not in any way help support the victims of crime. All it does successfully is provide a crutch to perpetrators by saying it was not their fault, a multinational company caused them to do it. What a joke! What twisted mind invented this new victim? Everyone is a victim these days. They say, "I did not do it. It was not me. They made me do it." The Hon. Elaine Nile is giving the perpetrators of these crimes a crutch, and nothing more than a crutch.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It has to be proved in court.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: If you can prove this beyond reasonable doubt in front of a jury then you are a better man than I am, Gunga Din. I am concerned that some of our members, in conscientiously pursuing this matter, will have to watch violent sex films to satisfy the motives of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile. Those members are the Hon. R. D. Dyer, the Hon. J. Hatzistergos, the Hon. P. J. Breen and the Hon. J. F. Ryan - young chap that he is. Perhaps he should be replaced by a man of the world, such as the Hon. J. M. Samios. What if the members of the Standing Committee on Law and Justice do not want to watch this video filth?

[Interruption]

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile says that it is illegal in the United States of America. I can tell the honourable member that pornographic material is in the front windows of shops throughout Washington D.C.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It is illegal, and every day people are charged for selling it.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It is in the front windows of shops of Washington D.C., the national capital. Here it is kept behind closed doors.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: How do you know it is in the front windows?

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: Because I was in Washington, D.C. in August.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile: It was in the red light area.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: I can assure Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile it was not in the red light area. It was down near the main railway station.

The Hon. D. J. Gay: That is the red light area.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. PEZZUTTI: It is not the red light area. The House is being trifled with. Transmitting the bill to the law and justice committee is wasting the time of the committee and the resources of the Parliament. It is nothing short of outrageous. I was unaware that the Opposition would move an amendment to transmit the bill to the committee. However, as there was a vote in my party room, I will support the amendment. We should think about these matters much more seriously before we go down this path in future. I will endeavour to ensure that we never go down this path again with Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile.

The Hon. J. HATZISTERGOS [4.05 p.m.]: It is one thing to be concerned about victims of sexual attack and victims who are the subject of tragic incidents, such as those whom this bill purports to address. It is another thing to support this bill or refer this nonsense to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice. The committee has a great many important matters to tackle, particularly the crime prevention through social support reference from the Attorney General. It should not be bothered by bills such as this, which makes absolutely no sense.

Page 2737

The bill states that it will deal with offensive sexual material, which is defined as, firstly, material that is obscene. How on earth does a court determine whether something is obscene? Under our offensive language provisions, one court decides a term is offensive and another court decides it is not. Courts would have to view these items of literature to determine whether they are obscene. Clause 3 of the bill defines "offensive sexual material" as:

any printed or pictorial matter or a film that describes or depicts sexual behaviour and . . .

(b) depicts a person . . . who is, or who is apparently, a person who has not attained the age of 16 years in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult . . .

The court will have to make judgment not only on offensive provisions but also on whether a person is under the age of 16 or apparently under the age of 16. The bill defines "sexual offence" as:

any other offence involving violence . . . committed against the victim of an offence referred to in paragraph (a) at or about the time of the commission of that offence.

What on earth does that mean? Clause 5, which is the crux of the bill, refers to responsibility. That is an interesting provision. What will happen if an offender has seen six or seven different articles or has material from 10 distributors? Will everyone be sued? Will the court determine the impact of the delivery, the newsagent from whom the material was bought, the publisher and the individuals shown in the material?

This is the most unworkable, illogical legislative initiative that has ever come from the Christian Democratic Party. Then the bill includes a provision for exemplary damages. This would be a legal first for New South Wales. Damages will apply in a case where a person has died. That has never happened before in New South Wales, but that provision is in this bill. It is a load of nonsense and the bill ought not be referred to the law and justice committee. The committee has more important things to do than worry about trivial stuff like this.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [4.08 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

The PRESIDENT: Order! According to sessional orders, business is now interrupted to allow the mover to speak in reply. However, as the Hon. Elaine Nile is not present, I will put the question.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mr Bull Dr Pezzutti
Mrs Forsythe Mr Ryan
Mr Gallacher Rev. Nile
Mr Gay Mr Samios
Mr Hannaford Dr Wong
Mr Harwin
Mr M. I. Jones Tellers,
Mr Lynn Mr Jobling
Mr Oldfield Mr Moppett

Mr Breen Mr Kelly
Ms Burnswoods Mr Macdonald
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Obeid
Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon
Mr Corbett Mrs Sham-Ho
Mr Della Bosca Mr Shaw
Mr Dyer Ms Tebbutt
Mr Egan Mr Tsang
Mr Hatzistergos Tellers,
Mr Johnson Mr Manson
Mr R. S. L. Jones Mr Primrose

Miss Gardiner Ms Saffin

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion negatived.