Ian Gilfillan: Australian Democrats in the SA Parliament

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 6 June 2001

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 2001 Autumn Sitting Index Browse by Subject Search all Democrats material About the SA Parliament Hansard on line
		Attorney General News

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: We oppose this clause because of what appears to us to be a practical obstacle. As I understand it, this clause would require an adult escorting a minor into an MA film to stay on the premises throughout the film. Assuming that we have interpreted this correctly, we do not regard that as being an addition in terms of protecting a juvenile. It may very well expose the adult to a very painful hour or hour and a half quite unnecessarily and, provided the adult has escorted the minor into the film, surely that is enough indication that some form of consent has taken place. I indicate our opposition to the clause.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I would have thought that it was an adequate indication of approval if a parent or guardian were in attendance while the child bought the ticket or was present while the ticket or tickets were bought. How ever desirable this intention of the Attorney is, who will police it? Who will actually monitor the time that a parent or guardian is using a facility or getting refreshments? What is the penalty if they do not come back, if they have some sort of dilemma and find that they are physically incapable of coming back? It seems to me that it is a futile gesture; it is very naive in its concept and probably totally impossible in its implementation.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I understand that this clause removes the requirement on the prosecution to prove that a person charged with an offence under section 46 knew that a publication was classified RC or was a submittable publication and instead provides that it is a defence for the defendant to prove that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the publication was not classified RC or was not a submittable publication as the case may be. In other words, the onus to prove guilt moves so it is on the accused to prove innocence. It is against what I believe to be common justice, and on that basis I oppose the clause.