Senator SCULLION (5:55 PM) —I oppose schedule 2 in the following terms:

This relates to schedule 2 of the bill, which is about the transportation of prohibited material. This is a matter of nuance. We understand what the clear intent is: to make some clear consistency in terms of alcohol. But we want to ensure we are sending a consistent signal in the circumstances where pornography may occur in communities. We accept that it is on the grey end of the nuance but we thought long and hard about this. We are not accepting that a defence needs to be provided in the same way as for alcohol, because of the nature of the way pornography is transported. It may go in the post or by courier. We believe that that could provide a potential defence for anybody who has it on their person but is carrying it in such a way that it could be for someone else’s consumption.

Knowing the prescribed areas as I do—and no doubt as those in government do—that there could be circumstances under which you would say, ‘I am just carrying this pornography via Kintore to Perth,’ or some other place is a little far-fetched. It could create a defence when there is clearly an offence. I think a defence exists if you are a postal worker, but to take pornography to a place outside a prescribed area by necessarily driving through a prescribed area—

Senator Crossin —Not Kintore. Elliott community is on the Stuart Highway.

Senator SCULLION —Some elements are a prescribed area, if I can take the first and only interjection in this debate from Senator Crossin. She wants to interject about elements of the Stuart Highway, which is not part of the intervention area, although there are elements of Elliott there. It is very disappointing to see her come into this place and make such an unconstructive contribution, but, frankly, I am not surprised.

There are a number of ways that can occur. We believe that in any event there is a judicial system and a defence exists. If this were a strict liability offence, I would understand why you would have to create a particular defence around that. It is not a strict liability offence and I believe the government has made quite a significant effort to provide a reverse onus of proof in that regard. We simply do not think it goes far enough, and that is the reason we will not be supporting these changes.