XN000022-1995-07-19 — Page 58

-

- 33-

There have been a large number of suggestions from the community on how obscene and indecent articles should be controlled. These range from restricting the sales outlets for indecent articles, defining the meaning of "obscenity" and "indecency" clearly in law, increasing the power of law enforcement agencies, to modifying the operation of the OAT. In considering all these suggestions, we always adhere to the principle of maintaining freedom of expression through a system that imposes the minimum restrictions necessary to protect public morality, decency and propriety. This means that measures which would be too restrictive and would infringe on freedom of expression would not be pursued unless there are very strong public interests for so doing. I am grateful that the Bills Committee also shares this important principle.

I have now agreed with the Bills Committee to introduce the following changes to address the concerns expressed by various parties.

First, to address the concern of the publication industry that the compulsory use of

opaque wrappers on all indecent articles is too restrictive, and will deprive them of the chance to promote their articles through the use of attractive cover designs or packaging, we have agreed to only requiring those articles, the cover designs or packaging of which are also indecent, to be put in opaque wrappers. This requirement is needed to prevent offensive or indecent material from being publicly displayed. Indecent articles with cover designs or packaging which are not indecent shall be able to use transparent wrappers. These wrappers serve as a very important function, which is to clearly identifying the articles as indecent thereby alerting both the vendors and the prospective buyers to their contents.

Second, we have agreed, after due consultation with the Judiciary, to make some changes to the operation of the OAT to make its operation more transparent and its classifications more readily understood by the community. I am pleased to say that the Judiciary has been highly responsive to community views and has agreed to these changes, which include:-

Ex

firstly, increasing the minimum number of adjudicators from two to four at full hearings to review, pursuant to section 15, the interim classification of articles, or to reconsider, pursuant to section 17, previously classified articles. However, for interim hearings and for full hearings to determine the obscenity and decency of articles referred to the OAT by other courts under section 29, the minimum number of adjudicators will remain at two, as at present;