UPDATES: 27th July 2008
Four Hentai DVD's: R18+ Rating Review
CELEBRITY SKIN Vol 30 # 175: Banned in Australia
HUSTLER BARELY LEGAL Vol 15 #11: Banned in Australia
AUDREY-SEXUAL FREAK 8: Censored in Australia
MY DAUGHTER HAS A DICK 2: Banned in Australia
Censorship, and the balance of power in the Senate
UPDATES: 13th July 2008
SALO: Banned in Australia Again!
FALLOUT 3: Banned in Australia
DARK SECTOR: Censored for MA15+
MANHUNT 2: Banned in NZ
DEEPER 10: Banned in Australia
New Ratings: THE ENFORCER-SCREAM-URBAN LEGENDS-REPO MAN
UPDATES: 29th June 2008
SHELLSHOCK 2-BLOOD TRAILS: Banned in Australia
DARK SECTOR: Classification Board Report
SOUNDS OF OBSESSION: Censored in Australia
BUSTY BEAUTIES NO.61: Banned in Australia
Senate Report: Sexualisation of children in the contemporary media
UPDATES: June 21st 2008
Customs, and importing banned games
Psychological Society: THE HAPPENING should be R18+
GANGSTER NO. 1: Censored in Australia
New Ratings: MEN IN BLACK-DIRTY HARRY-BRAVEHEART-HAMBURGER HILL
Gordon Ramsay's Bad Language: Inquiry Report
UPDATES: June 8th 2008
Bill Henson Debate: 12th June @ Sydney MCA
SOUNDS OF OBSESSION: Banned in Australia
PRIVATE TROPICAL 38: Censored in Australia
Games R18+: Discussion Paper in two months
Donald McDonald on porn in the Northern Territory
Senate Estimates: Internet filtering trial and gambling sites
Australian Censorship News
27th July 2008
Four Hentai DVD's: R18+ Rating Review
Someone is unhappy about the R18+ ratings awarded to Siren Visual Entertainment's Hentai collection. The R18+ ratings of four titles are to be looked at by the Review Board this coming Wednesday. The application has been made by Bob Debus, the Minister for Home Affairs. This is just further proof that Rudd's Government is no better than Howard's when it comes to censorship. At the moment we don't know who made these complaints to Bob Debus, but that is sure to come out in the Review Board reports.
Australian Government
Classification Review Board
23 July 2008
MEDIA RELEASE
Review announced for the anime films Classes in Seduction, T & A Teacher, Holy Virgins and Bondage Mansion
The Classification Review Board has received four applications to review the classification of the anime films Classes in Seduction, T & A Teacher, Holy Virgins and Bondage Mansion.
Classes in Seduction was classified R 18+ (Restricted) with the consumer advice ‘High level animated sex scenes’ by the Classification Board on 1 May 2007.
T & A Teacher was classified R 18+ (Restricted) with the consumer advice ‘High level animated sex scenes, Violence’ by the Classification Board on 21 February 2008.
Holy Virgins was classified R 18+ (Restricted) with the consumer advice ‘High level animated sex scenes’ by the Classification Board on 11 March 2008.
Bondage Mansion was classified R 18+ (Restricted) with the consumer advice ‘High level animated sex scenes and themes’ by the Classification Board on 9 April 2008.
The reviews are in response to applications from the Minister for Home Affairs. Under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the Minister for Home Affairs may make an application for a review at any time.
The Classification Review Board will meet on Wednesday 30 July 2008 to consider the applications.
The Classification Review Board has invited the Australian Family Association and the NSW Council for Civil Liberties to apply for standing as interested parties at the reviews.
The Classification Review Board’s decisions and reasons for its decisions will appear on the Classification website once the reviews have been finalised.
The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review body. Meeting in camera, it makes a fresh classification decision upon receipt of an application for review. The Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board.
******
CELEBRITY SKIN Vol 30 # 175: Banned in Australia
We have another magazine to add to the increasing number of titles that are being hit with RC ratings. The distributor NAMDA, had CELEBRITY SKIN VOL 30 # 175 banned by the censors on July 7th.
This title was first submitted to the censors back in the late 80's/early 90's. These issues were either rated Category 1 or Unrestricted, though the mid-90's the ratings were creeping up with many issues getting hit with Category 2 ratings. In January 2003, Vol 24 No112 became the first issue to be banned by the censors. Eight pages were subsequently torn out before it scored a Category 1 rating. Any issues that receive Category 2 ratings seem to be immediately censored (the pages are torn out) and re-submitted for Category 1 ratings. We will have to wait and see if the same fate is to befall Vol30 #175.
******
HUSTLER BARELY LEGAL Vol 15 #11: Banned in Australia
Magazine number two to suffer a ban is HUSTLER BARELY LEGAL Vol 15 #11. NAMDA received the RC rating on July 9th. The first issue of this title was rated Category 1 back in August 1993. Since then it has often been censored prior to submission, and has seen its ratings move back and forth between Category 1 and 2. The only other issue to be banned was Volume 6 (2001) of the Australian Edition. JT Publishing had a 100 page proof print rated RC in May 2001. It was then modified and the following month passed with a Category 1 rating.
******
AUDREY-SEXUAL FREAK 8: Censored in Australia
MY DAUGHTER HAS A DICK 2: Banned in Australia
Last week saw the hardcore DVD AUDREY: SEXUAL FREAK 8 finally passed with an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating. Calvista originally had it banned by the censors back in May. Despite this second submission being listed as the 'Original Version', it must have been censored to achieve the X18+ rating. Adult DVD Talk has a review which doesn't reveal any obvious problem scenes. Though we can guess the censors wouldn't have approved of the appearance of a gun in the Isis Love and Jack Lawrence segment.
Calvista were not so lucky with the DVD of MY DAUGHTER HAS A DICK 2. This transsexual feature from the Juicy Entertainment studio was banned last Monday.
******
Censorship, and the balance of power in the Senate
For much of the Howard government's rule the balance of power in the Senate was held by the Catholic Tasmanian Senator, Brian Harradine. He used his deciding vote to get a number of pro-censorship laws passed. These included the scrapping of the Non-Violent Erotica rating, and the tightening up of the X18+ rating.
We now have several pro-censorship senators holding the balance of power. Steve Fielding from the Religious Right Family First Party is one, and joining him is the newly elected Nick Xenophon from South Australia.
Xenophon's most outrageous censorship statement came back in August 2005 he called for a children's TAMAGOTCHI game to be Refused Classification, or at least rated R18+ because he believed it promoted gambling. On Thursday he appeared on the ABC's Q&A program voicing his displeasure at an R18+ games rating.
Also appearing was the National's Senator Barnaby Joyce. Joyce's pro-censorship views were made apparent form the day he entered the Senate. His usual badly informed statements have included calling for the cartoon POPETOWN (yes he's a Catholic) to be pulled from Foxtel, and criticising SBS and threatening their funding for screening IN SEARCH OF THE PERFECT PENIS, QUEER AS FOLK, and LOST WORLDS: THE REAL FAMILY OF JESUS. He also accused SBS of screening the 1997 version of LOLITA, when it was in fact Kubrick's 1962 original. So you can guess what his opinion would be when faced with a question about R18+ games. We get legalised snuff, rape games, and amatars!
The full question and the answers can be found on You Tube. Watch it and weep!
It has to be said that Labor's Senator, Mark Arbib came out of the whole thing looking the most respectable. This is despite Tony Jone's falsely telling him that there was no ratings system for games. It is next too useless telling politicians like Joyce and Xenophon that they have been wrongly informed about games ratings. However, it is worth dropping Mark Arbid an e-mail supporting the fact that he didn't fall in with the rest of the herd.
Joab Gilroy was the guy who asked the question of the panel. He has written a piece for gamearena.com.au in which he gives his take on the answers.
He has also responded to comments made on the article at gamepolitics.com.
Re: Clueless Aussie Politicians on R Ratings, Game
Violence
Submitted by Joaby
July 26, 2008 at 6:53 am -0500
I am the person who went on the show, and I feel it is important (and my right)
to clear up some misconceptions people are having about what occured. I know I
dropped the ball on the show somewhat - answering yes to the first question was
a mistake. There was a lot of background noise (it becomes audible in the show
when I get my second chance to speak) but in reality I should have jumped at the
opportunity to explain what the game is about straight away.
Unfortunately, after talking to the producers and people organising the show I was given the impression that not only did the panel intend to discuss the situation properly, but that they wouldn't be deliberately misrepresenting the game. I guess I thought the host wouldn't lead the first (and probably least qualified person on the entire board) panellist directly away from the topic and into a discussion about violent video games in the space of a sentence.
So I made a huge mistake there. But I'd like to clear up the idea that I could have stood up at any time and corrected anyone. You'll see me sitting with my hand up waiting to speak - talking over others is only allowed if you're sitting on the panel. Before the show it was articulated over and over that if you yell out and speak out of turn you would not get any face time on the camera again. It was important that I sat and waited for the opportunity to speak - unfortunately when it came it was through questions which I tried to use to turn the topic of conversation back on track - to no avail.
The audience member who spoke after me was a plant there to talk about the subject of gaming machines (pokies) because Senator Xenophon was elected solely thanks to his anti-pokie stance and he's a one track record. The audience member made a good point anyway.
Walking out of the studio was the first time I got a chance to speak my mind, and I let the producer I talked to have it. But obviously that's not enough. Two people who had the opportunity to ask their questions even vocalised on their way out that they thought I got utterly shafted - once again great for my temper at the time but utterly worthless in the grand scheme of things. Anyway, I don't think it has to be counted as a loss. It highlights how ignorant the general public is on the issue, and that at least gives us an idea of how to combat the issue.
Update 27th July 2008
Refused-Classification.com
Australian Censorship News
13th July 2008
SALO: Banned in Australia Again!
Sometimes it is difficult to summon the enthusiasm to regularly update the site. Then along comes a ban, or a series of bans, and we become sufficiently pissed off that it re-energises us all over again.
One such moment is now! In the past month we have seen two games banned, a porn magazine, and the usual number of hardcore DVD's. Coupled with this, the fallout from the Bill Henson controversy still seems to be rumbling on. Finally the Classification Board are reporting that they have again banned SALO-120 DAYS OF SODOM.
It is not short of the mark to say that this has probably become the most controversial film ever for the Australian censors. Over the years, its release, and subsequent re-banning has been so politicised that it is difficult to see how the Classification Board could view it objectively. Make no mistake; in 2008 this should be an R18+ film. The British film censors are still more conservative than the OFLC, yet they passed SALO with an 18 certificate several years ago.
Apart from I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, we can think of no other title that has had quite as many Australian censorship problems. Saying that, even ISOYG, has been passed uncut since 2004.
If you think we are joking about how political this has become, then check-out our SALO-120 DAYS OF SODOM page for the full thirty-two year censorship history. Here is an edited version of the whole sorry story.
1976-March: Banned by censors.
1976-April: Review Board Confirms the ban
1992-December: Banned by censors
1993-Janaury: R18+ by Review Board
1997-June: Confirmed R18+ by Review Board
1998-February: Banned by Review Board
2002: Two DVD's confiscated by customs
2003: Banned by censors
2008: Banned by censors
******
FALLOUT 3: Banned in Australia
In the space of a couple of weeks we have now seen two games banned by the Classification Board. FALLOUT 3 joins SHELLSHOCK 2: BLOODTRAILS in being awarded an RC rating.
The reason given for the ban was 'drug use'. This was the same reasoning that saw BLITZ: THE LEAGUE rejected back in January 2007.
We agree with Ron Curry, CEO of the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia who predicts that this may help the push for an R18+ rating. As we've previously mentioned, gamers seem to be much more active in protesting against these bans. This is in contrast to film fans that only ever seem to get mildly animated when the latest art-house flick becomes the victim of an RC rating.
The Fallout might be positive Screen Play 10.07.08
"Along with GTA (Grand Theft Auto) IV and Shellshock 2, the Fallout 3 decision highlights the need for an R18+ classification in Australia,"
"Each time a game receives an RC (refused classification) it further amplifies the ambiguity in our classification regime. With the impending review by the Attorneys-General, there is a lot of attention on this issue and decisions such as this help only help to galvanise public support further."
******
DARK SECTOR: Censored for MA15+
MANHUNT 2: Banned in NZ
DARK SECTOR was the first game of the year to be banned. Four months later, and censored of all the controversial material, it has finally been passed with an MA15+ (Strong Violence) rating. You can avoid this sanitised version when it hits stores on September 1st.
Back in 2003 MANHUNT became the first game ever to be banned in New Zealand. Not having the option of an R rating, the Australian Classification Board awarded it an MA15+ (Medium Level Animated Violence). Following some adverse publicity, the rating was overturned by the Review Board in 2004 and the game was banned.
MANHUNT 2, the 2007 sequel has yet to rated by the Australian censors, but over in New Zealand it has joined the first part in being judged as 'objectionable. The submission was made by the New Zealand customs department following the confiscation of a copy of the game.
New Zealand Office of Film and Literature
Classification
4 July 2008
Manhunt 2 classified as objectionable
The computer game Manhunt 2 was classified on 12 June 2008 by the Office of Film and Literature Classification as objectionable due to the manner in which it depicts and deals with matters of sex, horror, cruelty and violence. This classification means that it is illegal to import, sell, supply or possess this game in New Zealand. To read the full written decision click the link below.
Background
Manhunt 2 is the sequel to the computer game Manhunt, produced by Take 2 Interactive. The original game was classified as objectionable by the Office in December 2003 due to the manner in which it dealt with and depicted horror, crime, cruelty and violence.
Manhunt 2 follows the story of Dr Daniel Lamb who has had another personality imprinted into his mind as part of a weapons research project. Things go wrong and Daniel is thrown into an asylum. The second personality, Leo, is designed to be a cold and deadly assassin. Leo has a firm hold on Daniel’s mind, and Daniel must complete various missions in order to conquer him. To complete these missions the player has no choice but to kill everyone he or she meets in ever more brutal and gory ways using an assortment of weapons which include baseball bats, plastic bags, shards of glass and a circular saw.
Submission and classification of Manhunt 2
Manhunt 2 was not submitted by the game’s producers. A pirated copy of the game was seized by Customs, and submitted for classification under section 13(1)(a) of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993.
The game was examined under the criteria set out in the Act and was classified as Objectionable. In its classification decision the Office noted that the game is constructed around fatality moves which involve vicious and bloody action, with a more gory death resulting in a higher score.
This classification means that it is an offence to import, sell, distribute, supply or possess this game. The penalty for doing so is, in the case of an individual, a fine not exceeding $10,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, and in the case of a body corporate a fine not exceeding $200,000.
Classification decision
The Office’s written decision on Manhunt 2 outlines the classification process and the reasons for classifying the game as Objectionable.
******
DEEPER 10: Banned in Australia
As we said, the censors have been busy across the board. We've have a banned art-house movie (SALO), a banned game (FALLOUT 3), and course, a banned porn DVD.
Roddy D's DEEPER 10 has just been Refused Classification by the Classification Board. Adult DVD Talk has a review that indicates that bondage and spanking may have been the content that pushed this over the edge.
******
New Ratings: THE ENFORCER-SCREAM-URBAN LEGENDS-REPO MAN
It's time for a round-up of the latest rating/consumer advice changes.
First up is THE ENFORCER, the third Dirty Harry movie. As mentioned in previous updates the DIRTY HARRY has now been dropped from an R18+ to MA15+, whilst MAGNUM FORCE retains the R18+. THE ENFORCER has always been rated R18+, and still holds that rating today. Only the consumer advice has changed from 'Medium Level Violence' to simply 'Violence'.
06/08: THE ENFORCER DELUXE EDITION Film (DVD) Classification R18+ (Consumer Advice Violence)
10/01: THE ENFORCER Film (DVD) Classification R18+ (Medium level
violence)
For its theatrical re-issue in 1993 Sam Peckinpah's PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID was awarded an M (High Level Violence) rating. It has just been re-rated and increased to MA15+. This kind of makes sense as the 1993 re-submission was made a month before the MA15+ was introduced.
06/08: PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID (said to be PAT GARRETT & BILLY
THE KID SPECIAL EDITION) Film (DVD) Classification MA15+ (Strong violence,
Nudity)
03/93: PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID Film (35 mm) Classification M (High level
violence)
A couple of 90's slasher movies have just been re-rated. SCREAM and URBAN LEGEND have both seen their consumer advice increased.
06/08: SCREAM Film (DVD) Classification MA15+ (Strong horror violence)
12/96: SCREAM Film (35 mm) Classification MA15+ (Medium level violence, Horror
theme)
07/08: URBAN LEGEND Film (Blu-Ray) Classification MA15+ (Strong horror
violence and sex scene)
10/98: URBAN LEGEND Film (35 mm) Classification MA15+ (Medium level violence)
Finally, Alex Cox's REPO MAN has always seemed an odd candidate for an R18+,
but this is what the censors awarded it back in August 1985. The reason given for the
rating was language and violence, which were described as:
Language
Frequency: Frequent
Explicitness/Intensity: Medium
Purpose: Gratuitous
Violence
Frequency: Infrequent
Explicitness/Intensity: Medium
Purpose: Gratuitous
Newvision Film Distributors were also surprised by the R18+ and appealed to the Review Board who then dropped it to an M. Despite the availability of an MA15+, Umbrella Entertainment has just had a DVD rated M (Coarse language, violence and drug use).
Update 13th July 2008
Refused-Classification.com
Australian Censorship News
29th June 2008
SHELLSHOCK 2-BLOOD TRAILS: Banned in Australia
We have our second banned game of 2008! Atari Australia had SHELLSHOCK 2-BLOOD TRAILS Refused Classification on June 20th. This is the sequel to SHELLSHOCK NAM '67 which was also banned back in June 2004. A revised version of that was eventually passed with an MA15+ (Medium Level Animated Violence, Adult Themes, Sexual Violence, Drug References) rating in August 2004. We'll have to wait and see if the same happens with the sequel. The U.S. release is scheduled for September 30th.
******
DARK SECTOR: Classification Board Report
The first game to be banned in 2008 was DARK SECTOR which received the dreaded RC rating back in February. Thanks to Mick we now have the Classification Board report detailing the reasons for the ban. The game was released in the U.S. back in March so it now seems very unlikely that we'll be seeing any version of the game here in Australia.
******
SOUNDS OF OBSESSION: Censored in Australia
Calvista have just had a censored version of the hardcore SOUNDS OF OBSESSION rated X18+ (Explicit Sex). It was originally hit with an RC rating back on June 4th. Xcritic.com has a review of the DVD which doesn't mention any obvious problematic content.
******
BUSTY BEAUTIES NO.61: Banned in Australia
BUSTY BEAUTIES NO.61 has the honour of being the first porn magazine to be banned in 2008. NAMDA had the 96 page issue No.61 from May 2008 banned on June 20th 2008.
This was launched in 1988 as HUSTLER BUSTY BEAUTIES and has always been rated either Category 1 or 2 by the censors. Many of the previous submissions are listed as being modified before submission. This probably means they tore out any pages that they suspected of being a problem.
Issue 61 is the first to be banned, and is listed as being the 96 page 'Original version'. The submission prior to this was back in October 2005 when a modified version of issue 25 was passed as Category 1.
******
Senate Report: Sexualisation of children in the contemporary media
In the last update we reported on the Senate Inquiry report into bad language on TV. We said that it could have been worse. Now we have the Senate inquiry into the sexualisation of children in the contemporary media which has just released its final report. In the wake of the Bill Henson controversy this could have been much worse!
Recommendation 13 actually makes a lot of sense.
The committee recommends that state and territory governments, which have the responsibility for education, consider the introduction into all Australian schools of comprehensive sexual health and relationships education programs which are inclusive of both young people and parents, adopting a consistent national approach to the question.
Here is the full list of recommendations.
The Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts Sexualisation of children in the contemporary media June 2008
Members
Senator Anne McEwen (ALP, SA) (Chair)
Senator Andrew Bartlett (AD, QLD) (Deputy Chair)
Senator Simon Birmingham (LP, SA)
Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp (LP, VIC)
Senator Kate Lundy (ALP, ACT)
Senator Stephen Parry (LP, TAS)
Senator Ruth Webber (ALP, WA)
Senator Dana Wortley (ALP, SA)
Participating Members participating in this
inquiry
Senator Lyn Allison (AD, VIC)
Senator Steve Fielding (FF, VIC)
Committee secretariat
Dr Ian Holland, Secretary (until 9 May 2008)
Mr Derek Abbott, Acting Secretary (from 19 May 2008)
Mr Sean Mehonoshen, (WISE Participant)
Mr Ivan Powell, Senior Research Officer
Mrs Dianne Warhurst, Executive Assistant Committee
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
1.12 The committee considers that the inappropriate sexualisation of children in Australia is of increasing concern. While noting the complexity of defining clear boundaries around this issue, the committee believes that preventing the premature sexualisation of children is a significant cultural challenge. This is a community responsibility which demands action by society. In particular, the onus is on broadcasters, publishers, advertisers, retailers and manufacturers to take account of these community concerns.
1.13 Noting this heightened concern, the committee believes that this issue should be followed up and therefore recommends that the steps taken to address it by industry bodies and others should be further considered by the Senate in 18 months time.
Recommendation 2
3.30 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth through the National Health and Medical Research Council or other appropriate body commission a major longitudinal study into the effects of premature and inappropriate sexualisation of children.
Recommendation 3
4.29 The committee recommends that, as part of its review of the Children's Television Standard (CTS), the Australian Communications and Media Authority consider revising the requirement that CTS content be broadcast for at least half an hour per day to enable broadcasters to schedule it in extended blocks at times which are more likely to attract children to watch it.
Recommendation 4
4.56 The committee recommends that broadcasters review their classification of music videos specifically with regard to sexualising imagery.
Recommendation 5
4.65 The committee recommends that broadcasters consider establishing dedicated children's television channels.
Recommendation 6
4.108 The committee recommends that publishers consider providing reader advice, based on the Office of Film and Literature Classification systems of classifications and consumer advice, on magazine covers indicating the presence of material that may be inappropriate for children.
Recommendation 7
5.17 The committee recommends that, in 18 months, the Senate review the effectiveness of the operation of the Australian Association of National Advertisers' Code for Advertising and Marketing Communications to Children, introduced in April 2008.
Recommendation 8
5.28 The commissioner recommends that the Advertising Standards Board and Free TV Australia consider establishing a media and advertising complaints clearing house whose functions would be restricted to: • receiving complaints and forwarding them to the appropriate body for consideration; • advising complainants that their complaint had been forwarded to a particular organisation; and • giving complainants direct contact details and an outline of the processes of the organisation the complaint had been forwarded to.
Recommendation 9
5.46 The committee recommends that the Advertising Standards Board produce a consolidated half-yearly list of all complaints, including those received by 'phone, where the impact of an advertisement on children, however described, is a factor in the complaint.
Recommendation 10
5.76 The committee recommends that the Advertising Standards Bureau consider adopting a process of pre-vetting advertisements either (a) at the request of the advertiser where they are concerned that the content of the material may be pushing the boundaries of the codes or (b) where an advertiser or agency has regularly produced advertising material that has been the subject of complaints.
Recommendation 11
5.78 The committee recommends that, to ensure that the Advertising Standards Board is able to make determinations that are in keeping with prevailing community standards, the Advertising Standards Bureau should develop a formal schedule or process for community consultation, including the use of focus groups, and research to act as a benchmark for board determinations.
Recommendation 12
5.96 The committee recommends that the Advertising Standards Board rigorously apply standards for billboards and outdoor advertising to more closely reflect community concern about the appropriateness of sexually explicit material and the inability of parents to restrict exposure of children to such material.
Recommendation 13
6.39 The committee recommends that state and territory governments, which have the responsibility for education, consider the introduction into all Australian schools of comprehensive sexual health and relationships education programs which are inclusive of both young people and parents, adopting a consistent national approach to the question.
Update 29th June 2008
Refused-Classification.com
Australian Censorship News
21st June 2008
Customs, and importing banned games
James "DexX" Dominguez has written a great article for the Screenplay blog looking at the issue of importing games.
Your Turn: The best way to buy The Age 17.06.08
"There is no question that Aussies are getting a raw deal.
As part of the long-suffering PAL region, Australians suffer from delayed game and hardware releases, higher prices, and - in Australia at least - game censorship because of the lack of an R18+ classification.
The mantra from the Screen Play community has long been, "Import! Import! Import!" But out of curiosity, and because I am always ready for any opportunity to play devil's advocate, I decided to do a proper analysis based on real numbers to answer a question close to the hearts of all budget-conscious gamers: what really is the best way for Aussies to buy video games?"
However, it was this comment from James that got us thinking.
"Customs can also intercept parcels, and there is a danger that games and DVDs that have been edited or banned in Australia will never reach your letterbox. Even harmless but obscure games never submitted for classification in Australia may be seized by customs because they have no rating."
First of all, a small correction to the above. You are not going to lose a 'harmless but obscure game' just because it does not have a rating. It would have to have significant violent, or some sexual content. Customs do not take films or games just because they do not hold Australian ratings.
Since this site launched six years ago we have maintained a list of films and games that have been confiscated by customs. It has been compiled by readers of this site, and from information posted to forums. There is no publicly available 'official list', so this is the best that there is. We believe customs should publish this list themselves to allow the public to make informed decisions if they should import a game or DVD.
Put it this way. You are a law abiding citizen who knows DARK SECTOR is banned in Australia, so you simply don't try and import it. However, you wish to import MANHUNT 2, or RULE OF ROSE, two controversial games that have never been rated by the Classification Board. Remember, just because they are controversial, and don't have ratings, it does not mean they could not be rated. However, customs decide to hold on to your copy of MANHUNT 2. Besides customs and you, no one else knows this. What is to stop the next law abiding citizen checking the OFLC database, seeing that MANHUNT 2 is not listed, and rightly concluding it is not banned? However because it is on some secret customs list, it is seized once again, and another member of the public loses their money. If customs made public all of the titles they confiscated then we would all be better informed and able to make judgements as to what we should and shouldn't import. Every quarter Canadian customs publishes such a list, so why can't we?
Okay, rant over, back to the subject of our customs service taking games. We can only find one mention of customs confiscating a game and that was back in November 2001 when a poster to a newsgroup claimed they had lost six copies of GRAND THEFT AUTO 3. Six copies would definitely have been considered a commercial quantity, so you can kind of understand why this happened.
From reading various forums we know that it is common practice for people to import banned games into Australia. However, we can find no confirmed confiscations. We hear of plenty of obscure horror films being taken. How many copies of SLAUGHTERED VOMIT DOLLS, SCRAPBOOK, and HORRIBLE HIGH HEELS have been imported compared to NARC, SOLDIER OF FORTUNE: PAYBACK, or any of the controversial GTA titles? So we have to conclude that banned games are being imported in greater quantities than banned films. Yet the reports of customs confiscations are the other way around. Kind of odd don't you think?
Here is a quote from an article that appeared at the time of the MANHUNT ban. A customs officer is interviewed and gives some background to their attitude to games.
The games conundrum. crn.com.au 23.02.05
'The internet has made it easier for people to order these things inadvertently or on purpose,' says an Australian Customs Service spokesman. 'There's a reasonable degree of people assuming that what they can buy on the net is legal to import'.
Computer games were but a 'very small fraction' of the media being seized by Customs, he says. 'It tends to be DVDs - standard movies and soft porn.' Commercial quantities were not tending to be imported either, he added.
'The bulk of what we see is personal importation of one or two items, either mailed or in luggage.' When an OFLC Review Board refused classification to Rockstar's Manhunt game late last year, it released a guideline for retailers advising them that the game and all related advertising had to be withdrawn immediately. It also stipulated that the ban also applied to online stores.
So there you have it. Games are a small fraction of what is confiscated. In our films database we have over fifty reports of titles being stopped since 2000. In our games database we have one report of a commercial quantity of a banned game being stopped. Now we are in no way condoning that you should go out and import RC games, we are simply stating all the information that we have.
So if you have had a game confiscated then please let us know. Similarly, we still want to hear about any films you have lost. Canada tells its citizens what their customs service is up to. All we have here in Australia is second hand information, and this website.
Oddly, we have not heard of any confirmed confiscation in over a year. Come on, they must have taken something! Have customs gone soft, or is the new Rudd government not as censorious as we thought.
******
Psychological Society: THE HAPPENING should be R18+
The Australian Psychological Society has called for the MA15+ rating of THE HAPPENING to be increased to R18+. The Classification Board rated it MA15+ (Strong violence) on June 4th. Is this some elaborate form of publicity dreamt up by the Twentieth Century Fox marketing department?
Australian Psychological Society
psychology.org.au
Media Release
12 June 2008
Film classification inappropriate The Australian Psychological Society (APS) has expressed grave concerns over the classification MA given to the soon to be released movie, ‘The Happening'.
"This movie, with its graphic and repeated depictions of violent suicides should receive an R classification instead of the MA rating," said APS President, Amanda Gordon. "We call on the Classification Board to urgently review this rating."
"Not only does this movie romanticise and sensationalise suicide, but it depicts many different methods of achieving that end. There is good evidence that the reporting of suicides can lead to copycat behavior, and there are many instances of increased suicide rates following media portrayals of suicide. The more detailed the descriptions or portrayals of the suicide, the greater the risk that vulnerable people, including young people or people with mental health problems, may harm themselves.
Psychologists have grave concerns that we will see a real increase in both suicide attempts and successful suicides, as a result of people viewing this movie. The most vulnerable, including young people, will be protected by a higher rating by the Classification Board", said Gordon.
"We have media guidelines for the reporting of suicide, and classification systems for films for very good reasons", says Gordon. "What better reason is there than the protection of vulnerable people in our society?"
--End--
The APS is the largest professional association for psychologists in Australia, representing more than 15,700 members. The APS is committed to advancing psychology as a discipline and profession. It spreads the message that psychologists make a difference to peoples' lives, through improving psychological knowledge and community wellbeing.
******
GANGSTER NO. 1: Censored in Australia
Back in 2001 Paul McGuigan's GANGSTER NO. 1 premiered on DVD in Australia courtesy of Columbia Tristar. For some reason we ended up with a censored version which removed a large part of the violent content from one scene. Aidan has now sent in details and You Tube links to the uncut footage.
******
New Ratings: MEN IN BLACK-DIRTY HARRY-BRAVEHEART-HAMBURGER HILL
It's time for a round-up of the latest rating/consumer advice changes. First up is MEN IN BLACK, a title that has had a few censorship issues since its initial release eleven years ago. Sony has just had a Blu-Ray disc rated M by the Classification Board. Hopefully this will at last be the uncut version.
06/97: MEN IN BLACK (35mm) Classification M15+ (Low Level Violence)
07/97: MEN IN BLACK (35mm) Appeal Classification M15+ (Low Level Violence, Low
level coarse language)
08/97: (35mm) Classification PG (Medium level violence, Medium level coarse language)
05/00: MEN IN BLACK (DVD) Classification M15+ (Low Level Violence)
06/08: MEN IN BLACK (Blu-Ray) M (Frequent action violence)
You can read more about the censorship of MEN IN BLACK in the database.
Next is DIRTY HARRY, one of the original early 70's R-rated films. Since 1999 it has been dropped to MA15+, but the most recent consumer advice has been raised from medium to strong.
06/99: DIRTY HARRY Film (DVD) Classification MA15+ (Medium level violence,
Adult themes)
10/01: DIRTY HARRY Film (DVD) Classification MA15+ (Medium level violence, Adult
themes)
06/08: DIRTY HARRY SPECIAL EDITION Film (DVD) Classification MA15+ (Strong
violence, Adult themes)
Another title that has had its consumer advice increased is BRAVEHEART.
04/95: BRAVEHEART Film (VHS) Classification MA15+ ( Medium level violence)
05/95: BRAVEHEART Film (35 mm) Classification MA15+ (Medium level violence)
09/00: BRAVEHEART Film (DVD) Classification MA15+ (Medium level violence)
06/08: BRAVEHEART - BLURAY - DISC 1 OF 2 Film (DVD for Blu-Ray) Classification
MA15+ (Strong violence)
As with MEN IN BLACK, Australia has also previously suffered the release of a censored UK print. The 2000 DVD release re-frames a throat slitting scene that was done for the UK theatrical release. The scene was uncut in the Australian theatrical release, so should be back in for the new Blu-Ray disc.
Finally, we have HAMBURGER HILL which has just been re-rated for the first time since its initial release. Back in 1987 the MA15+ was still six years away, so it was a choice between M and R. Luckily HAMBURGER HILL scored the lower M-rating. Consumer advice was still a couple of years away, so this is the first time it has been considered.
08/87: HAMBURGER HILL Film (35 mm) Classification M
02/88: HAMBURGER HILL Film (Videotape) Classification M
05/08: HAMBURGER HILL Film (DVD) Classification MA15+ (Strong violence and
coarse language)
******
Gordon Ramsay's Bad Language: Inquiry Report
The final report has been released of the Senate Committee set up by the Liberals Cory Bernardi following the use of bad language in C9's KITCHEN NIGHTMARES. The best we can say is that it could have been worse. It consists of nineteen recommendations some of which are aimed at making it easier to complain. Those channel logos may just get more annoying if the program ratings are now added next to them. The full list of recommendations can be found on the KITCHEN NIGHTMARES page.
David Gyngell, the CEO of C9 has already said that you will not be hearing the word cunt on the network.
Update 22nd June 2008
Refused-Classification.com
Australian Censorship News
8th June 2008
Bill Henson Debate: 12th June @ Sydney MCA
The Bill Henson nude photo controversy will be the subject of a debate at the MCA this coming Thursday. This should be an interesting event so get along if you are in Sydney. Details are:
6.00pm to 8.00pm
Thursday 12th June 2008
Foundation Hall
Museum of Contemporary Art
140 George Street
The Rocks
Sydney
On a related note, it's great to see Watch on Censorship back and organising events. This is the first time we have heard from them in a number of years.
Art Censorship Public Forum at the MCA
Media Release: 6th June 2008
‘Art Censorship: the Bigger Picture’ is the title of a public forum to be held on 12th June in Sydney. In the interests of stimulating some informed and thoughtful public debate, a group of highly respected speakers will take a measured look at the topic in light of the furore surrounding recent censorship of the work of well-known artist Bill Henson.
The forum is co-convened by Watch on Censorship a community organisation with the goal of protecting and promoting the rights of adult Australians to freedom of speech and expression in all media, and the National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA), the peak body representing and advancing the professional interests of the Australian visual arts, craft and design sector. The event is also proudly sponsored by Frankel Lawyers: arts, media and entertainment.
The forum will run from 6.00pm to 8.00pm on Thursday 12th June 2008, at the Foundation Hall, Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney. The evening’s proceedings will be introduced by Margaret Pomeranz, ABC TV film critic and President of Watch on Censorship. The discussions will be chaired by David Marr, lawyer, writer and journalist and Vice President of Watch on Censorship.
Panel Speakers Ian Howard is an artist, Dean of the College of Fine Arts, University of NSW and Chair of the National Association for the Visual Arts (NAVA). He will provide an artist’s perspective about his experience in testing the boundaries in relation to militarism and national security, self censorship, and the vagaries of audience interpretation.
Tony Bond, is the Assistant Director of the Art Gallery of NSW and Head Curator International. He will offer the gallery perspective on art censorship discussing galleries as ‘special’ places, curatorial decision making, tools used to deal with the risk of sensationalisation of sensitive subject matter, and dealing with complaints and threats.
Hetty Johnston, is Executive Director and founder of Bravehearts Inc. which aims to engender child sexual assault prevention and protection strategies, advocate for understanding, promote increased education and research, and provide healing and support. Ms Johnston will give her views on the boundaries of public tolerance in relation to art and protection of the child.
Julian Burnside QC, is a barrister, writer and President of Liberty Victoria, has acted pro bono in many human rights cases and is passionate about the arts. He will elaborate the law in relation to art censorship and how it is exercised, including the complexities of ‘intention’, ‘context’, ‘reasonableness’, public attitudes, protecting human rights & freedom of expression.
Clive Hamilton, is a prolific writer and public commentator and immediate past Executive Director of The Australia Institute. He will comment on community standards, public moral codes, and limits to freedom of expression.
For media comment or access to speakers please
contact:
Tamara Winikoff, Executive Director NAVA, ph: 02 9368 1900 or 0411 162 156
Raena Lea-Shannon, Public Officer Watch on Censorship, ph: 02 9318 2900 or 0400
689 060
******
SOUNDS OF OBSESSION: Banned in Australia
PRIVATE TROPICAL 38: Censored in Australia
Another week, and another banned hardcore DVD to report. The 2007 Vivid production SOUNDS OF OBSESSION was rated RC on June 4th.
Calvista had better luck with PRIVATE TROPICAL 38: MOTHER AND DAUGHTER ANAL VACATION, when a censored version received an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating on June 3rd. This Alessandro Del Mar production for Private was originally banned on May 19th.
Meanwhile Olya Booyar, the Deputy Director of the Classification Board has been telling the Asia Media Summit in Malaysia that:
" the board did not "cut" material at all but instead classified the form in which it was submitted"
True, the Classification Board does not censor material, they just rate it. Unfortunately one of the ratings includes banning it with a Refused Classification (RC) rating. It is true to say that the Classification Board didn't cut PRIVATE TROPICAL 38: MOTHER AND DAUGHTER ANAL VACATION. The censoring was left to Calvista who had no choice if they wanted to get the DVD released.
Nature of media censorship evolving, conference told. abu.org.my 28.05.08
The Deputy Director of the Classification Board of Australia, Olya Booyar, said the media played an important role in the sharing of ideas and values and therefore reflecting social change but it did not drive that change alone.
"Just as the media often pushes the boundaries of what is socially acceptable, society sets those very boundaries for the media. That is, the society pushes back."
The family as an institution was constantly under threat as new technologies made interaction easily available and there was a constant worry that the media was to blame.
Ms Booyar shared with delegates how Australia regulated rather than controlled behaviour and the media's portrayal of it in Australia.
Under the National Classification Scheme, the board did not "cut" material at all but instead classified the form in which it was submitted.
Over time the classification scheme in Australia had evolved to provide for sensible and defensible decisions that had regard to the sensibilities of the community, Ms Booyar said.
"The challenge for the government and the board is to find the meeting point between a sensible approach that allows individuals to exercise a choice regarding their entertainment option and appropriately reflecting current community standards."
******
Games R18+: Discussion Paper in two months
Guy Barnett is the Liberal Senator from Tasmania who has been a key player behind the push to censor the internet in Australia. In 2005 he authored a letter to John Howard, co-signed by sixty-two of his Coalition colleagues, seeking national action on internet pornography and violence.
His latest censorship crusade is shaping up to be a fight against the introduction of an R18+ games rating. In late May, he took the opportunity during Senate Estimates to question Donald McDonald, the Director of the Classification Board, regarding the progress of the discussion paper that was agreed to at the last Standing Committee of Attorneys General (SCAG) meeting. What we learnt is that Victoria is leading the drafting of the paper, and it should be ready in a couple of months. It will then need to be approved by the various Attorney Generals, before being released to the public for discussion.
Barnett makes his position clear when he asked:
"How will families and family organisations be advised of this discussion paper?"
He also seems somewhat concerned that there is a chance that any organised campaign by the Religious Right may not be enough to outweigh the submissions by those who support an R18+.
"How will they decide what is appropriate? Will they consider 100 submissions here and 500 there, and say that 500 outweighs the 100, so it can proceed? How will it work?"
Usually these public consultations are flooded with submissions by pro-censorship groups that far outweigh those of the other side. However in this case we believe there is a real chance, if the gamer community gets organised, for the opposite to happen. Bring it on!
Here is full text of the discussion.
The speakers are:
Classification Board: Mr Donald McDonald, Director
Senator Guy Barnett Senator (Tas) Liberal
Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig Senator (Qld) Labor
Attorney-General’s Department Management and Accountability
Mr Ian Govey, Deputy Secretary, Civil Justice and Legal Services Group
Ms Janette Davis, Assistant Secretary, Office of Legal Services Coordination
STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
AFFAIRS: Classification Review Board: Discussion
Date 27 May, 2008
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Department Attorney-General's Department
Program Classification Review Board
Page 110
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm.
Source Senate
Talk CHAIR—Mr McDonald, welcome to our estimates hearing this evening. As you introduce yourself, I also ask you to indicate whether you have an opening statement to provide.
Talk Mr McDonald—No, Senator. We have no opening statement.
Talk CHAIR—All right. We will proceed to questions. Senator Barnett?
Talk Senator BARNETT—Thank you, Chair. Hello, Mr McDonald. I thank you, and Ms Shelley and Mr Griffin, for being so patient in waiting for your turn. I do not have many questions, but I would like to ask about computer games. Does your board classify computer games?
Talk Mr McDonald—Yes, Senator, we do.
Talk Senator BARNETT—On what basis is that—the same basis as films, or, if not, on what basis do you do that?
Talk Mr McDonald—Yes, it is. The guidelines for films and computer games are very similar.
Talk Senator BARNETT—All right. In what respect may they be different?
Talk Mr McDonald—They are different in respect of assessing impact because of the interactivity of games and there are elements that are different. As far as games are concerned, there is no category of R18+ for games. Games can be classified up to MA15+ or then they are RC.
Talk Senator BARNETT—That is what I wanted to ask about and seek your confirmation of. At the moment there is no category, is there, for R18+.
Talk Mr McDonald—No.
Talk Senator BARNETT—It is illegal in Australia to have a computer game if it is not categorised?
Talk Mr McDonald—Yes. If it cannot be accommodated at MA15+, it is refused classification. Therefore it is not permitted to be sold in Australia.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Right. I am with you—very good. I understand there is some discussion among the various states. There has been a SCAG meeting. I am happy for the department to answer these questions. I would like to know if a discussion paper has been prepared with respect to the possibility of an R18+ rating for computer games. Perhaps before I ask that question, I will ask, Mr McDonald, if you have been consulted with respect to that possibility.
Talk Mr McDonald—No, we have not, and we would not expect to be. That is a matter of policy for governments to determine. We will of course be interested in the process but the department would be better placed to answer in respect of the discussion paper.
Talk Senator BARNETT—You have not had any input? You have not made a submission or written letters or given advice with respect to that matter?
Talk Mr McDonald—No, we have not, and we would not.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Thank you very much. Perhaps the department could respond.
Talk Ms Davies—At the last meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General censorship ministers at the end of March, ministers agreed that there would be a consultation process on the question of whether there should be an R18+ classification for computer games introduced into the national classification scheme. Victoria is the jurisdiction which has the lead on developing the discussion paper, which will be released. Officers are working together at the moment to develop that discussion paper, but it has not yet been finalised. Once a draft has been finalised by officers, it will then be provided to state, territory and Commonwealth censorship ministers for their approval, and then released for public consultation.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Before we get to the discussion paper, can you advise the committee as to how this topic got onto the agenda? Who is pushing or promoting the merits of an R18+ classification computer game?
Talk Ms Davies—It is an issue that has been discussed on and off over quite a number of years by censorship ministers. I understand it is an issue that is raised with all ministers in correspondence at regular intervals from the general public and from industry groups, with views in both directions, I should say. As I say, Victoria is the lead jurisdiction on the current item in terms of developing it, but I do not think it would be fair to say that any jurisdiction is actually pushing for the introduction or otherwise in that sense; it is something that ministers have decided that they need a consultation process for, to assess community views on the issue, which is one that is raised with them quite frequently.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Indeed. All right. When you say that Victoria is taking the lead, does Victoria have a position? What is it?
Talk Ms Davies—The issue as it was put to ministers was that there should be a consultation to assess views. Victoria has not put an active position in that forum.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Okay. Let us go to the draft discussion paper. They are preparing the draft. That is referred to the other states for comment. How is it pulled together? When can we see the first draft?
Talk Ms Davies—The process that occurs generally across most SCAG items or issues is that a group of officers works together on a paper, usually with one jurisdiction leading the actual drafting work. In this case, as I say, Victoria is leading the drafting of the paper. They are consulting with the group of officers who are essentially designated as censorship officers in that context. Drafts, comments and bits of input are circulated between the officers until we have a draft that officers agree is an appropriate draft to go to ministers for agreement to release it.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Does that discussion paper have to be approved by the various Attorneys-General in each state and territory before it is released publicly?
Talk Ms Davies—That is the process that we will be following, yes.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Right. When can we expect the discussion paper to be released publicly?
Talk Ms Davies—The aim at the moment is to have a draft finalised and sent to ministers certainly within the next couple of months, hopefully sooner than that.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Do you have a draft that we can consider?
Talk Ms Davies—Not at this stage, no.
Talk Senator BARNETT—You have not seen a draft?
Talk Ms Davies—There is draft text being circulated between officers, but there is not a draft that we could provide that is a draft that represents anything other than pieces of input.
Talk Senator BARNETT—You cannot table the draft text you have received? Can you do that for us?
Talk Mr Govey—Senator, it has not gone to ministers yet, so I do not imagine that we would be in a position to provide a draft until it was one that was settled by ministers.
Talk Senator Ludwig—I think the committee understands that that would be the normal course of events. I certainly would not think that the previous government would have enjoined in that process. These are matters that will have to go through the proper process. They will be available when they can be made available.
Talk Senator BARNETT—The federal department, the Attorney-General’s Department, is consulted in the same way as are the state and territory departments. Is that right?
Talk Mr Govey—That is correct.
Talk Senator BARNETT—You are fully consulted and you are allowed to make comment and have input?
Talk Mr Govey—That is correct.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Minister, would you like to share your view on R18+ classification computer games?
Talk Senator Ludwig—There is a process in place for that. That is where the appropriate comments can be made and circulated. The Attorney-General, through his department, will make the necessary comments. He is supported by the department in respect of that.
Talk Senator BARNETT—So your government supports the process?
Talk Senator Ludwig—The process is in place.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Okay. We have a couple of months. You said within two months you hope to have it distributed to the Attorneys-General.
Talk Ms Davies—That is what we would hope. Obviously I cannot control the time frame that it takes for each of the jurisdictions to agree that the paper is finalised for that purpose.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Sure. Do you know how long it would take for it to be made public after that process?
Talk Ms Davies—We would envisage not terribly long. I should just mention too that while in most instances they are the Attorneys, the group of ministers is actually those ministers who are responsible for censorship matters. They are generally referred to as censorship ministers. At the Commonwealth end, it is the Minister for Home Affairs, not the Attorney-General.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Has there been an agreement or an understanding with respect to consultation? Once the discussion paper is released publicly, what happens then?
Talk Ms Davies—At the moment we envisage that the paper will be released on or linked from each of the jurisdictions’ websites, including our department’s. It would also be drawn to the attention of key stakeholder groups. There will be a process of a call for submissions, in effect. We are currently investigating the most effective and efficient means of coordinating that—whether we will have one email address and one postal address, with the facility to forward things.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Will there be public hearings?
Talk Ms Davies—No. I would not envisage public hearings. It will be simply a process of providing submissions on the paper.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Right.
Talk Ms Davies—I am not aware of any SCAG consultation process that has involved public hearings.
Talk Senator BARNETT—How will families and family organisations be advised of this discussion paper?
Talk Ms Davies—There are a number of family type organisations who have corresponded with our minister and other ministers on this matter. We would certainly be drawing it to their attention directly. We would expect that there would be media releases about it. It will be as widely publicised as we are able to do.
Talk Senator BARNETT—How will they decide what is appropriate? Will they consider 100 submissions here and 500 there, and say that 500 outweighs the 100, so it can proceed? How will it work?
Talk Ms Davies—That is a matter for ministers, how they actually evaluate the material that is put before them in the context of the consultation. Officers will provide a report to ministers on the submissions received, but it is a matter for ministers what weight they place on what factors.
Talk Senator BARNETT—When would their next meeting be?
Talk Ms Davies—November.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Do you know a date?
Talk Ms Davies—I believe it is 6 and 7 November. I think that is a Thursday and Friday.
Talk Senator BARNETT—If it is different from 6 and 7 November, you could let us know?
Talk Ms Davies—Certainly.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Where will that be? Do you know where that will occur?
Talk Ms Davies—Brisbane.
Talk Senator BARNETT—Okay. I appreciate that very much. It has been most informative.
******
Donald McDonald on porn in the Northern Territory
Also discussed in Senate Estimates was the recent porn crackdown in Northern Territory. Donald McDonald, the Director of the Classification Board is asked by Labor's Trish Crossin about the likely hood of expanding the ban to cover all of the NT, and the ACT!
The speakers are:
Classification Board: Mr Donald McDonald, Director
Classification Review Board: Ms Maureen Shelley, Convenor
Senator the Hon. Bill Heffernan Senator (NSW) Liberal
Chair Senator Trish Crossin Senator (NT) Labor
Ms Janette Davis, Assistant Secretary, Office of Legal Services Coordination
STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
AFFAIRS: Classification Review Board: Discussion
Date 27 May, 2008
Committee name STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Department Attorney-General's Department
Program Classification Review Board
Page 110
Proof Yes
Database Estimates Comm.
Source Senate
Talk CHAIR—Mr McDonald, I want to ask you about the provision of R18+ videos or DVDs—movies—that can be purchased only in the Northern Territory and the ACT. Is that correct?
Talk Mr D McDonald—Did you say R18+? It is X18+.
Talk CHAIR—X18+. Is that the classification?
Talk Mr D McDonald—X18+ can only be legally purchased in those two territories.
Talk CHAIR—I take it that if you were found in possession of an X18+ movie or video, whatever, in other states, you would be in breach of state or federal laws?
Talk Mr D McDonald—That would be a matter for the state jurisdiction.
Talk Ms Davies—In general, the prohibitions that relate to X18+ material in the states relate to the sale or display of that material, not to possession. There may be some offences relating to possession in the presence of a minor, but in general it is not unlawful to possess that material in the states; it is unlawful to sell it.
Talk Ms Shelley—Could I add a clarifying remark, Chair?
Talk CHAIR—Yes, Ms Shelley.
Talk Ms Shelley—It is illegal to possess it in Queensland, but not in the other states. Queensland is different.
Talk Senator HEFFERNAN—Well, we know that.
Talk CHAIR—That is not the matter I want to go to. What I want to ask is: given the fact that the Northern Territory intervention is now nearly nine months on, has either of the boards been involved in any discussions about banning the sale of this material in the Northern Territory?
Talk Mr D McDonald—That would not be a matter for the Classification Board, Senator. That also would be a matter for governments in either jurisdiction.
Talk CHAIR—Ms Davies, can I ask you if that has been a matter for your area?
Talk Ms Davies—Yes, it has.
Talk CHAIR—To what extent?
Talk Ms Davies—The amendments that were made last year to the Classification Act which prohibit the supply or possession of certain high-level material, including X18+ films in prescribed areas in the Northern Territory. We had input to those amendments, clearly.
Talk CHAIR—That is true, but I understand you can still purchase this kind of material in Darwin, for example.
Talk Ms Davies—Yes. It is still legal to sell that material in areas of the Northern Territory, other than the prescribed areas of the Northern Territory.
Talk CHAIR—Yes. Has there been any discussion with you or the department about banning the sale of the material right across the Northern Territory?
Talk Ms Davies—I am not aware of any discussions.
Talk CHAIR—Who would set predominant legislative requirements for that? Would it be at the territory or federal level at this stage?
Talk Ms Davies—In general, the legislation dealing with any restrictions on the sale, et cetera, of material at different levels is in state and territory legislation.
Talk CHAIR—Has anything been raised at the SCAG meetings about looking at the availability and the sale of this material across areas such as the ACT and the Northern Territory?
Talk Ms Davies—No.
Talk CHAIR—So X18+ has not been raised as an issue at all, despite the focus on the objectives of the intervention in the Northern Territory?
Talk Ms Davies—It may have been touched on in general discussion, but it is certainly not an item that is under consideration.
Talk CHAIR—All right, thank you.
Talk Senator HEFFERNAN—That would be too sensible.
Talk CHAIR—It is a bit of a gap. Mr McDonald, thank you very much for your time. It is appreciated.
******
Senate Estimates: Internet filtering trial and gambling sites
During Senate Estimates in May 2008, Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham questioned the ACMA and Stephen Conroy regarding the internet filtering trial, and access to gambling sites.
Key points to come from the discussion were that the ACMA had 800 black-listed sites, and that they are currently conducting an ISP filtering trial in Tasmania, with the results due to be delivered on June 30th.
Senator Birmingham got this confirmation from the ACMA that they were filtering a broad range of content.
Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—You are testing, obviously, the gambling sites, for example. You are testing the illegal sites relating to child porn and so on. Are you also testing a broader scope of pornography? Is that to be expected?
Talk Ms O’Loughlin—A broader scope of content, yes.
Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—A broader scope of content across all of those types of genres of internet sites?
Talk Ms O’Loughlin—Yes, things that might be of concern to people in accessing sites on the net, not necessarily just things that are prohibited under the current law.
He also got this clarification from Stephen Conroy as to the governments position on filtering.
Talk Senator BIRMINGHAM—Before we get to a blanket introduction of ISP filtering, you are committed to—
Talk Senator Conroy—No, we are committed to work with the sector to go through a process of laboratory trial and then a live trial after that. We have been working well with the IAA and a number of other organisations and they are giving us valuable input.
The full text of the questions can be found on the internet censorship page.
Update 8th June 2008
Refused-Classification.com