Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard   

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 4 May 1989
Page: 1838

Senator TATE (Minister for Justice)(8.16) —Perhaps `extreme' was too strong a word. As honourable senators would know if they look at page 48 of the Bill, the definition of `performance' already tries to draw a distinction between performers and the audience. The definition `performance' is set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) `being a live performance given in Australia by one or more qualified persons, whether in the presence of an audience or otherwise'. By that, one is indicating that the definition of `performance' offered there presupposes a distinction between performers and audience. Senator Hill's amendment seems to my mind to be somewhat ambiguous and difficult in its reference to `a participation in a performance as a member of an audience'. One should cease to be a member of an audience by being involved in a performance. If someone is drawn out of the audience, surely he is a performer.

Senator Puplick —If the audience sings, is it a performance?

Senator TATE —If someone remains part of the audience, he is distinct from the performance.

Senator Hill —That is the problem. That is audience participation.

Senator TATE —I do not think Senator Hill's amendment clarifies the situation in that respect.

Senator Macklin —In what respect?

Senator TATE —I refer to his trying to draw members of the audience into the definition of performers. They should be left in the audience or be called performers. They cannot be performers as members of the audience. They are two distinct categories.

Senator Puplick —Ho nonsense! Of course they can.

Senator TATE —I do not think this is worth going to the wall over. I do not know that it is worth spending a lot of time on. We have spent 18 minutes on it and I think it could usefully be put to the vote.