******

It has been Senate Estimates this week in Canberra. Des Clark and his staff were there to explain some of the more recent OFLC decisions. Brian Harradine was absent due to ill health. His place was taken by Julian McGaurin of the Victorian National Party. It was McGaurin who was behind the push that saw SALO banned. The following exchange between McGaurin and Senator Joseph Ludwig (Qld, Labor Party) is worth highlighting.

Senator McGAURAN—........ But moving on, Madam Chair, many years ago I was involved in a movie called Salo, which was eventually banned.
Senator LUDWIG—Did you appear in it?
Senator McGAURAN—Pardon?
Senator LUDWIG—You said you were involved in it.
Senator McGAURAN—I was involved in getting it banned.
Senator LUDWIG—I see.  

The speakers for the following discussion are:

Senator Christopher Ellison (WA, Liberal Party)
Senator Linda Kirk (SA, Labor Party)
Senator Julian McGaurin (Vic, National Party)
Senator Joseph Ludwig (Qld, Labor Party)

Mr Des Clark, OFLC Director
Mr Paul Hunt, OFLC Deputy Director
Mr John Robinson, OFLC Business Manager

Office of Film and Literature Classification
Mr Des Clark, Director

LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE: Office of Film and Literature Classification: Discussion

Date: 24 May, 2005
Department: attorney-general's portfolio
Database: Estimates Comm.
Committee name: LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Program: Office of Film and Literature Classification
Proof: Yes
Page: 103
Source: Senate

CHAIR—Welcome, Mr Clark.

Senator Ellison—Madam Chair, I was going to say that this is a spot normally reserved for Senator Harradine, who is, unfortunately, not with us due to ill health.

CHAIR—We do miss Senator Harradine, I agree.

Senator Ellison—I am sure Mr Clark will too.

CHAIR—I have a feeling that we may now more than make up for his absence.

Senator Ellison—I think so. I have got that funny feeling. I just thought there was some aspect of nostalgia that we do not have Senator Harradine here tonight.

CHAIR—Indeed, particularly if we had renamed ‘special expert procedures’ ‘sexpros’, as I was keen to do earlier this evening.

Senator KIRK—In 2004-05 there was additional funding of $0.3 million that I understand was to reflect the workload increase due to Operation Auxin.

Mr Clark—It was $270,000 because of the additional workloads that are coming out of Operation Auxin.

Senator KIRK—What workload increase did you experience as a consequence of that operation?

Mr Clark—We had a significant increase in the number of applications. A lot of those applications were subsequently withdrawn, but Mr Hunt does have the specific figures in terms of the decisions that were made by the classification board in relation to the operation.

Mr Hunt—We initially received just over 1,000—I think it was 1,004—applications. As Mr Clark said, a significant number were withdrawn for a number of technical reasons. At the end of the day, the board made 333 classification decisions and issued a further 299 evidentiary certificates.

Senator KIRK—Was the $270,000 funding that you received enough, or more than enough, to finance those increases in applications?

Mr Clark—That was sufficient to meet the increase in classifications.

Senator KIRK—How many films, computer games and videos were considered by the office in this last financial year?

Mr Hunt—In the 2003-04 financial year?

Senator KIRK—Yes.

Mr Hunt—Do you want a total breakdown of all decisions by the board? Would you like them broken into films and games?

Senator KIRK—You might be able to take them on notice. I wonder if also used you can give us the figures from 2004-05 until the current date.

Mr Hunt—Yes, Senator.

Senator KIRK—That would be helpful; thank you. Will the information that you give us set out the numbers that were refused classification as well as those that were approved?

Mr Clark—Yes, it does.

Mr Hunt—Those figures are in our annual report, including the numbers refused.

Senator KIRK—Have you recently introduced a new classification scheme for computer games? Is that a new introduction?

Mr Clark—There is not a new scheme. The recent legislative amendment amalgamated the markings and classifications for computer games and films so that they will appear the same. The markings and classifications will be the film classifications that have been used up until now. Essentially, the biggest difference is that G8 will be called PG, and it continues to be that there is not an R classification for computer games.

Senator KIRK—How is that different scheme for computer games working?

Mr Clark—That scheme commences on Thursday of this week.

Senator KIRK—So you will be able to tell me when we speak next time.

Mr Clark—We certainly will, and we are looking forward to that.

Senator KIRK—I have some questions about the Classification Review Board in relation to appointments. How many new appointments have been made in this financial year?

Mr Clark—Two new appointments and one reappointment have been made.

Senator KIRK—What is the process for appointment of members to the Classification Review Board?

Mr Clark—The Office of Film and Literature Classification does not in fact conduct the process. That is conducted by the department, so Mr Govey may wish to provide an answer to that.

Mr Anderson—My recollection of the process that was followed for the recent appointments was that it was notified on the web sites of both the department and the Office of Film and Literature Classification that there was to be a process. Some people put in applications as a result of that. The committee comprised a representative from the Attorney-General’s Department; a representative from the ACT government, as it happened, on behalf of the state and territory classification ministers; the convener of the Classification Review Board; and a member of the Attorney’s office. A shortlisting process was followed, interviews were carried out in addition to some experiential testing and then recommendations were made to the Attorney. The Attorney then also consulted with state and territory classification ministers before the appointments were made.

Senator KIRK—Did you mention that any of the existing members of the board were members of the committee?

Mr Anderson—The convener of the board was a member of the committee.

Senator KIRK—How long does that process take from the time it is advertised on the web site through to the appointment of the new members?

Mr Anderson—We interviewed in late November or early December last year. I believe they had been on the web site in around October. I could take that on notice to check the exact dates. The appointments were made comparatively recently: obviously there is that need for considerable consultation between the different jurisdictions.

Senator KIRK—In the advertising, are there particular criteria that are listed that would make an applicant worthy of appointment? I am thinking about whether there are various skills, past experience or work skills that might be listed.

Mr Anderson—The act itself gives some direction as to what is required. Obviously, there is a need for members of the board to be able to operate in a group to review material and to be able to engage in discussions with other group members. Certainly, demonstrated community involvement is something that is required. To the extent that is possible, it is desirable to have a range of demographic and geographic coverage. So, based upon the applicants of course, it would be desirable to have coverage from as many different areas of Australia—from people with children, people without children, people who are mature adults and people who are younger; that sort of thing.

Senator KIRK—Are the positions advertised as part time or full time?

Mr Anderson—The positions were not strictly advertised in the sense there were not press advertisements, although the positions were placed on the web sites. The positions were not notified as being part time or full time because the review board only gets together when there is an application to the review board. It is fairly rare. I think there are around 10 applications a year to the review board concerning films, and a few concerning games. So there are relatively infrequent occasions when the board needs to convene to consider an application.

Senator KIRK—How is remuneration paid to the board members?

Mr Anderson—There is an annual stipend that is paid.

Senator KIRK—Does that vary according to the number of meetings they may need to have?

Mr Anderson—I do not believe so. It varies; the convener receives a slightly higher stipend.

Senator KIRK—But I imagine allowances are paid for travel and the like.

Mr Anderson—That is correct.

Senator KIRK—I was interested to learn of the number of matters that the review board considered and the number in which classification was either refused or approved. Could you take that on notice and provide us with that information?

Mr Clark—That information is in the annual report.

CHAIR—Do you have any questions, Senator McGauran?

Senator McGAURAN—First of all, I want to ask you about the movie Irreversible, which you classified R. I would like to run through a few things. Do you think the violent rape and murder scene was demeaning to the victim, Mr Clark?

Mr Clark—The board, in looking at the film, decided that the scene was certainly very disturbing.

Senator McGAURAN—Demeaning to the victim?

Mr Clark—A portrayal of this type is demeaning to the victim but, in a narrative context—

Senator McGAURAN—No, that is all I wanted—in the narrow context.

Mr Clark—Yes.

Senator McGAURAN—According to the classification code, demeaning refers to ‘depiction directly or indirectly sexual in nature, which debase or appear to debase the person or character depicted’—so, it was for the victim. Is that how you took it?

Mr Clark—The board does not use the word ‘demeaning’ in its board report in relation to this film, as I recall. The actual fictional portrayal in the film could be considered demeaning, I agree with you there. But the actual film, as it is made, does not demean the victim because it is a fictional narrative that is being portrayed on film.

Senator McGAURAN—So, have you changed your mind? Is it demeaning to the victim?

Mr Clark—In the fictional sense that that is what it is, one could say that. But the board report does not talk about demeaning.

Senator McGAURAN—But it is to be taken in as part of the—

Mr Clark—It says it is high in impact

Senator McGAURAN—But it is not part of your judgment, the demeaning factor?

Mr Clark—If you were talking about a real event such as this, yes—

Senator McGAURAN—Like a documentary?

Mr Clark—But we are talking about a fictional event, not a documentary. In that context, it is not.

Senator McGAURAN—So, if it is a documentary, therefore filming real—it is demeaning.

Mr Clark—It could be.

Senator McGAURAN—It could be demeaning. But, because it is two actors, indeed, it is not demeaning. Is that what you are saying?

Mr Clark—That is correct.

Senator McGAURAN—So, I take it you believe that that rape-murder scene is not demeaning.

Mr Clark—In the context of this film, the board did not find that the scene was a demeaning portrayal, because it is a fictional portrayal in the context of a film which has high impact.

Senator McGAURAN—Most of the films, if not all, are fictional, aren’t they?

Mr Clark—The majority of public exhibition are fictional. There are occasional—

Senator McGAURAN—So your judgments are made on fiction—

CHAIR—Senator, if you could let Mr Clark at least finish his answers, I think it would be helpful to proceedings.

Senator McGAURAN—Okay.

Mr Clark—Senator, there are occasional documentaries which are features. There are occasionally films which would be refused classification which may have demeaning content in the view of the board. So a film which in the view of the board is demeaning is most likely to be refused classification.

Senator McGAURAN—All right. I will take it that you did not think that that particular scene was demeaning to the victim.

Mr Clark—The board did not.

Senator McGAURAN—The board.

Senator Ellison—I think it is clear that Mr Clark can only speak for the board. It is the board that does the classification, as I understand it, not Mr Clark.

CHAIR—Thank you, Minister.

Senator McGAURAN—Okay. He is the chief censor though. The buck stops at your desk, doesn’t it, Mr Clark?

Mr Clark—I carry responsibility of the OFLC and the classification board as chairman of the board—

Senator McGAURAN—Do you have a casting vote?

Mr Clark—At the end of the day, the board votes—

Senator McGAURAN—Do you have a casting vote?

Mr Clark—and, after that, I do have a casting vote.

Senator McGAURAN—Well, that makes you the real focus. How tight was this vote?

Mr Clark—It was not a casting vote situation. It was certainly a split decision by the board—

Senator McGAURAN—But you do not want to be too light about—

Mr Clark—Sorry, it was a unanimous decision.

Senator McGAURAN—shifting it onto the board: ‘The board makes all these decisions.’ You are the chief censor, you are the public face and you are the chairman with the casting vote. If you do not in your position—you certainly get paid more than the others, I suspect—carry some authority and responsibility, I would be surprised.

Mr Clark—The board is a board of statutory appointees who are expected to be independent in their decision making. The board cannot be directed by the chair as to how they should vote. The board will vote according to their view on the matter that is before them. Sometimes they vote unanimously, sometimes there will be a split decision. Rarely is there a situation where there is a casting vote.

Senator McGAURAN—All right. I will not go down that track. I was not meaning to. We will keep it tight, Madam Chair. Did you think that in that particular scene—I must not fall into the trap of continually repeating it—the victim was exploited?

Mr Clark—I find it difficult, because it is a fictional story that is being told. It is represented in a very violent manner.

Senator McGAURAN—Why I focus on this scene is that if you took that scene out it could well have been an MA.

Mr Clark—That is the problem—

Senator McGAURAN—I am focusing on that scene because that is where the classification came in—on that scene. I would say that was the dominant classifier—whether it was an R, an X or RC.

Mr Clark—No, I believe it would still have been an R-rated film because of the murder sequence that precedes that.

Senator McGAURAN—All right then. I did not quite get your answer. Do you think the victim was exploited?

Mr Clark—Senator, it goes back to this division between what is a real event where one could say, ‘Yes, that is the case.’ In this event you have actors who are willingly being paid to act a scene in a movie—

Senator McGAURAN—Well, we may as well revoke the whole thing if that is the case. If that is how you are going to judge it—by whether it is a documentary or a film—we may as well get rid of this.

CHAIR—Senator McGauran, let me make it quite clear.

Senator McGAURAN—It is a joke!

CHAIR—In this committee we allow witnesses to complete answers to their questions, we do not interrupt them and we proceed in an orderly fashion. If you would let Mr Clark complete the answers to his questions—

Senator McGAURAN—Offensive answers.

CHAIR—You may find the answers offensive or not, as the case may be—

Senator McGAURAN—Why don’t you put that in your report if that is your view now? Why don’t you put that in your report?

CHAIR—Mr Clark, if you would like to complete your answer to this question, Senator McGauran will ask his next question.

Mr Clark—Senator, the film runs for some 98 minutes. This particular scene, as I recall, is about nine minutes in the context of that film. Yes, it is very strong in content. The board was of the view that the actual rape scene was one where the lack of detail in it, although it was still very high in the R classification, permitted it to stay within the R classification category, particularly given the broader context of the film. If you have seen the film, the film ends on a note where you have very happy, innocent people going to a party. This makes the impact of the film even stronger in some respects, but it diminishes in the length of the film. Taking the scene out of context as a fictional narrative is not helping. Overall, yes, this film is very high in impact. Yes, two scenes in particular are in the top end of R—the board recognised that—but they can be accommodated in the R classification.

Senator McGAURAN—I am referring to the classification code here and under R-rated it specifically lists these criteria which I am pointing out to you. Here is another one. To you think that particular scene, which was dominant in the movie, depicts cruelty?

Mr Clark—It depicts a very violent rape scene.

Senator McGAURAN—Do you think it was implied?

Senator Ellison—Can I say something here which may be of assistance to everyone. Senator McGauran has now struck on the way the question should be put, and that is: what does it depict? The question is, did it demean the victim? Of course it was, as Mr Clark says, a fictional movie and the question is all of depiction—what did it depict? That might make it easier for Mr Clark to answer questions if Senator McGauran puts it in that term: did it depict this sort of thing? It is a fictional film which is depicting certain things. I think that is better wording to put in a question to Mr Clark.

Senator McGAURAN—You cannot just isolate scenes, Mr Clark, because scenes are often taken out and clipped—indeed, recut sometimes in extreme cases—to make a classification. That is a red herring you are putting up, without question. I will move on. But you can see my point. I am trying to read the code here which says ‘a high degree of exploitation’ and whether the sexual violence may be implied. It certainly was implied, wasn’t it, the scene? It was pretty obvious.

Mr Clark—Are you reading from the code? I have the code here. I think you may have the old guidelines for classification, not the code. The code says that we need to ‘take account of community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and the portrayal of a person in a demeaning manner’. They are the code words. It does not condone or incite, in my view, but it certainly is a depiction of violence, and sexual violence. Certainly I am not isolating that scene. With respect, I think you are isolating that scene and I am trying to put that scene into the context of the entire film.

Senator McGAURAN—You are trying to merge it into the greater film. Quite frankly, one scene can ruin a whole film’s classification.

Mr Clark—I agree.

Senator McGAURAN—Good. Stop trying to spread it so thin across the whole movie. It is a paramount part of the movie. But moving on, Madam Chair, many years ago I was involved in a movie called Salo, which was eventually banned.

Senator LUDWIG—Did you appear in it?

Senator McGAURAN—Pardon?

Senator LUDWIG—You said you were involved in it.

Senator McGAURAN—I was involved in getting it banned.

Senator LUDWIG—I see.

Senator McGAURAN—There was a scene of a 16-year-old girl or under raped and the movie was banned. What has changed so that Irreversible, which has I think under any viewing a worse scene, is allowed?

Mr Clark—I was not involved in the decision regarding that film, Senator, and I do not have access to the board report on that film at the moment. As you have described it, a 16-year-old girl would heighten the impact of a scene such as that. I cannot give you a detailed answer, but certainly that would be part of the consideration by the board.

Senator McGAURAN—So the 16-year-old girl’s scene is a worse scene—

Mr Clark—A child, under the age of 18, yes.

Senator McGAURAN—than what is depicted in Irreversible—a mature woman?

Mr Clark—The detail of the scene in Irreversible is not high; it is not a detailed scene. Yes, it is long, but it is not detailed. As I do not have knowledge of the other scene, I am unable to make a judgment on it.

Senator Ellison—I point out that if you had a depiction of a sexual act in that situation with a person under 18, it could well infringe the child pornography laws that we have enacted. I can get back to Senator McGauran on that if he is interested, but I think our new laws could catch a situation of that sort where a child is being abused in that fashion.

Senator McGAURAN—That is exactly why the movie was banned. Whatever laws exist now regarding the classification scheme also existed then.

Senator Ellison—I raise that to point out the current status—

Senator McGAURAN—You have told me what has changed since the banning of that one—that the difference regarding the rape scenes relates to the age of the person. Under those circumstances, the Report on the review of the operation of the 2003 guidelines for the classification of films and computer games—I forget who undertook that review—

Mr Jordana—The report was undertaken by a consultant named Kate Aisbett.

Senator McGAURAN—One of the key findings of the report was:

There is no discernible shift in the nature of permissible material within particular classification categories ...

So from the old category to the new category there has been no discernible shift.

Mr Clark—From the old classification guidelines to the new guidelines, the 2003 guidelines, her finding was that there has been no shift in the standards contained within the guidelines.

Senator McGAURAN—And you agree with that?

Mr Clark—Yes, Senator, I do.

Senator McGAURAN—Turning to another movie, 9 Songs, in the review board’s own report it is admitted that this movie has pushed all the boundaries; that it has taken the next step and broken the record. It states:

No previous movie in Australia has been classified R by the review board where it contains a prolonged, detailed scene of explicit ....

It is talking about sex, basically. So it has pushed the boundaries. To me, it has gone over the boundaries, but it has pushed the boundaries. This movie, 9 Songs, is a first. So there has been a distinct change. When a movie like Salo can be banned, with lesser degree scenes than either Irreversible or 9 Songs, it means that there has been a discernible shift in the interpretation of the code, and that the new code itself is different from the old one. Do you agree that 9 Songs is a movie like no other that has been released?

Mr Clark—Senator, because it is a decision of the Classification Review Board, I really do not want to comment on the decision. Certainly, as I understand it, the amount of actual sex contained in the film is greater than we have seen before—not a huge amount greater, but certainly there is a greater amount of actual sex in the film than in any other film before. But that is a decision regarding interpretation of the guidelines, not a change in the standards contained in the guidelines. With respect to the guidelines for sex at the R level, the words used in these guidelines and in the old guidelines are the same.

Senator McGAURAN—They are the same. So you are saying there has been a change in the interpretation of the guidelines. There has been a discernible shift.

Mr Clark—It is for the review board to interpret the guidelines. I cannot comment on that.

Senator McGAURAN—What are we to make of this report that goes to the minister, no less? It says:

There is no discernible shift in the nature of permissible material within particular classification categories ...

But there has. 9 Songs proves there has been a discernible shift. We have a first on our screens. Anyway, continuing on, if I may.

CHAIR—Senator McGauran, I want to alert you to the fact that the committee does have a very significant time constraint tonight. We have the entire estimates for the Australian Customs Service to examine this evening and we are running very short of time. Could you give the committee some indication of how long you might wish to spend with the OFLC?

Senator McGAURAN—Barring sidetracks—

CHAIR—Whose—yours or ours?

Senator McGAURAN—Probably mine—20 minutes.

CHAIR—Could we review that in 10?

Senator McGAURAN—Yes.

Senator Ellison—Perhaps we can also take some questions on notice.

CHAIR—That would be very helpful to the committee.

Senator Ellison—We want to ensure that Senator McGauran gets all his questions up.

CHAIR—Absolutely.

Senator McGAURAN—I have a letter here from the Attorney-General on a certain matter. I will read you a paragraph of it. It says:

However, Board and Review Board members, as statutory appointees, endeavour to make decisions which are as objective as possible, on behalf of the community and not as personal opinions. In other words, the boards apply what they consider to be the standards of reasonable adults in the community, rather than the personal standards of members.

Take into account that Philip Ruddock has quoted that you take community views into account. In a letter to Senator Harradine, from Minister Ruddock, he says that, in the case of 9 Songs, consumer advice was sought. Can you tell me what community opinion was sought when you reviewed the movie?

Mr Clark—Sorry, Senator, would you repeat the last phrase.

Senator McGAURAN—That community views were taken into account with regard to 9 Songs. He says that to me. He calls it consumer but in my letter he calls it community. You know what he is getting at. In fact, it is even part of your brief. Isn’t it your brief to take in community views?

Mr Clark—The classification board is broadly representative of the Australian community and, in making decisions, it plays out that role. In the ordering of the business of the board, often a board member may alone or with one or two others be in a position to have to make a decision on the classification of a product. In making a decision in that manner, they need to have regard to the views of the whole board. The whole board does have a range of views and they need to seek to reflect that in a decision. If they do not think they can do that, they will go back for a re-screen or another consideration of the product. When the classification board meets as a whole, they will more specifically articulate their own views in relation to their classification decision but they all have regard to and respect the views of the other members of the board. They have a vigorous discussion and then come to a decision so that, in making a decision, they are fulfilling the board’s statutory function, which is to be broadly representative of the Australian community. That is why they are there.

Senator McGAURAN—Am I to take it from that answer that they do assert their personal opinions?

Mr Clark—I have described to you the two ways in which they work. One is that it is a collective view of the board and, yes, in other circumstances they will have vigorous discussion. But, as I say, they have respect for it. It is not about being representative of any particular group; they just have to have regard to broad views in the community. As you appreciate, that is not going to suit everybody. Not everybody is going to be happy with those decisions.

Senator McGAURAN—I see your point but Mr Ruddock would not because he says you do not take into account your personal views—but you do bring your experience and broad views to the board I am sure. But it is clear not only from Mr Ruddock’s letter to Senator Harradine and to me with regard to 9 Songs and according to your charter that you must take into account community views, whatever way you do it.

Mr Clark—Yes, correct.

Senator McGAURAN—Specifically in relation to 9 Songs, how did you take into account community views?

Mr Clark—Senator, as I described to you, we are there because of the fact that the board members are widely experienced in the community. They participate in the community. They come from all over Australia from all sorts of geographic origins. In doing that, part of their function is to reflect the community. Therefore they do that in their day-to-day decision making. In testing our decisions, in saying, ‘Are we consistent with the community?’ we have done the community assessment panels in the past 10 months, and these are saying that the board is making decisions which are broadly consistent with community standards in terms of the focus groups done as part of that. The operational review has looked at that and there has been significant consultation there, talking with people about decisions being made by the board as to whether there has been a change in standards within the 2003 guidelines. In addition to that, the actual process for establishing the guidelines and developing the new guidelines once again involved a very extensive consultation process. So we are testing all the time. We do not just go out on one decision and say, ‘Are we consistent with community views?’ There is this ongoing process of research and finding out, ‘Are we in the right place?’ and broadly saying to us, ‘Yes you are.’

Senator McGAURAN—Then why did you, in reflecting community views, differ from the review board?

Mr Clark—That is the system, and the way the system operates—

Senator McGAURAN—They have a different outlook from the community view.

 Mr Clark—The review board makes a new decision, and from time to time the review board will make a decision at a higher classification level, the same level or a lower level. That is another test of the system and that is the function of the review board. It is a new decision. They use the same tools we use in the process.

Senator McGAURAN—They have the same community touchstone you do.

 Mr Clark—Yes, and they use the guidelines, the same code and the same sections of the act to come up with a decision. From time to time they will come up with a different decision, and that is demonstrating that the classification system is working.

Senator McGAURAN—The classification system makes it quite clear that bondage is inadmissible in a movie. Did you find that there was any bondage in 9 Songs? It is not even a point of discretion; it is out.

Mr Clark—The board came to a different view from the review board in relation to one scene in the—

Senator McGAURAN—Did you? Did your board find bondage—

CHAIR—Senator, Mr Clark is answering your question.

Mr Clark—In looking at that scene the board was of the view that this was a more of a role-play situation than a bondage situation. The board are very familiar with what a bondage situation is and were of a view that this was not the sort of activity that could be described as bondage in the sense of what they are accustomed to seeing in classifying or refusing classification to material that would seek to be an X-rated movie.

Senator McGAURAN—So it was role playing, not bondage?

Mr Clark—They are the words used in the board report in relation to this film.

Senator McGAURAN—The review board—the other mob—deemed it as bondage. They knew it to be.

Mr Clark—They did, but they also deemed it to be very mild as well in that context.

Senator McGAURAN—Did you read anything in the classification that it says mild bondage is all right but hard bondage is not?

Mr Clark—I did not describe it as mild bondage. That is the decision of the review board and I am not in a position to comment on a decision by the review board. I can only say that in coming to an X classification on the film 9 Songs and looking at that scene, they were of the view that it was not a serious bondage scene but more of a role-play scene.

Senator McGAURAN—So they have used their discretion about what is a serious bondage scene and what is a mild bondage scene. Though they accept that it is bondage and you do not—

Mr Clark—In the guidelines it just says:
Fetishes such as body piercing, application of substances such as candle wax, ‘golden showers’, bondage, spanking or fisting are not permitted.
The board was of the view that this was not bondage.

Senator McGAURAN—Yes, I know. But the review board was of the view that it was. Once you accept that it is, there is no room for discretion, be it mild or hard bondage or whatever you want to call it.

Mr Clark—The board was of the view that it was not bondage. If it was bondage in the view of the board, it would have been refused classification.

Senator McGAURAN—You are all getting very muddled. You do not think it is bondage and therefore it would not be refused classification on that basis. The review board thinks it is bondage and yet gives it classification. What a right muddle. Where are they? Are they here?

Mr Clark—The convener can be called, but she is not here. I would be very happy to take that on notice for a response from the convener of the Classification Review Board.

Senator McGAURAN—Chair, why isn’t there anyone here from the review board?

CHAIR—Would you like that taken on notice, Senator McGauran?

Senator McGAURAN—To whom?

CHAIR—To the convener of the review board.

Senator McGAURAN—To answer that question?

CHAIR—Yes.

Senator McGAURAN—It was a statement.

Senator LUDWIG—You cannot make a statement.

CHAIR—We actually deal in questions and answers here.

Senator McGAURAN—You are all muddled. All right, let her answer this: why are you all so muddled?

CHAIR—I do not think that is the question. The question is a specific question you were asking about 9Songs. That was my understanding.

Senator McGAURAN—All right. If she can possibly answer that, I would appreciate it.

Senator Ellison—We will take that on notice.

Senator McGAURAN—On 14 February Senator Harradine asked you:
Do you take the pornographic intent into consideration?
You answered:
If the intent is purely pornographic I am sure that the board will apply the guidelines very rigidly.
So if the intent is pornographic, you will certainly take that into account. Did you find the movie pornographic?

Mr Clark—Do you mean 9 Songs?

Senator McGAURAN—Yes.

Mr Clark—If I can go to the same estimates, I replied to Senator Harradine that the guidelines do not actually use the word ‘pornographic’ and nor does the code. Sexually explicit intent would place the film into an X classification, which is what the board did.

Senator McGAURAN—I am only quoting you back. You said:
If the intent is purely pornographic I am sure that the board will apply the guidelines very rigidly.

Mr Clark—And then I clarified that. I said that it does not use the word ‘pornographic’ in any of the instruments or tools that the board uses. That word does not appear. So the board is classifying it X in the sense that it is a special classification with sexually explicit material in it. That word is not used anywhere in the classification system.

Senator McGAURAN—So you do not take that into account.

Mr Clark—No, the X classification says:

... This classification category applies only to films. This classification is a special and legally restricted category which contains only sexually explicit material. That is material which contains real depictions of actual sexual intercourse and other sexual activity between consenting adults.

Senator McGAURAN—Aren’t you just playing with words? You have told us how you keep in touch with the community, and that is very good—and that, by the way, was a result of the movie Salo. It made many changes to the review board—although I despair that they are all unwinding now. The community, whom you are meant to refer to from time to time, know what pornographic means. They know the line, albeit that it is different for each person—there is a line and you know it when you see it.

Senator McGAURAN—I have not finished.

Mr Clark—I apologise.

Senator McGAURAN—It is my turn! I know you are just playing with words. You are hiding behind the fact that it is not classified, but in real life you have to take that into account, because every criticism that I have picked up—and critics are well known for their liberal views when reviewing films at the best of times—

Senator Ellison—If we could just get to the nub of the question.

CHAIR—We are very pressed for time, Senator McGauran.

Senator McGAURAN—In every critic’s review that I pick up, they use that term. You are trying to hide behind ‘sexually explicit’, but go out to the community and put those words to them and they would not know what you meant. Say ‘pornographic’ and they are with you. Every critic calls it pornographic or question whether or not it is. I have all the critics’ reviews here, from the Age and the Financial Review, claiming it is just pornographic and should not be exhibited. The Australian says it is pornographic—

CHAIR—Your actual question, Senator McGauran?

Senator McGAURAN—I have to give this a bit of a backdrop. The Herald-Sun asks is it not pornographic—

CHAIR—We are getting your drift. What is your actual question?

Senator McGAURAN—and there is a feature in the Age. So that is the term they use. If you want to stay in touch with the community, know what that word means and where that line is drawn. You use one term; the public identify with another, including the critics—and, may I add, the review board. The review board thought it was pornographic, ‘mildly pornographic’. But if it is pornographic it should not be shown. You use the term ‘sexually explicit’; we use ‘pornographic’.

Mr Clark—If I take the common word—and I agree with you, ‘porn’ is the more frequently used descriptor—you are perfectly right: yes, that is the case. I am not playing with words. They are the actual words that we have to use in coming to classification decisions. The board, if you like, formed a view that 9 Songs should be classified X because it contains sexually explicit material which, yes, the press are commonly referring to as porn. They are not using that word but the words that are here. They are not words to hide behind but words that they are required to have regard to. That is the classification system. The Classification Review Board looked at that and considered that the amount of sex in the film could be accommodated by an R rating. The reasons for their decision on 9 Songs are in their report. If they choose to use the word that is commonly used, there is nothing wrong with that, but it is not a word that appears in the classification system.

Senator McGAURAN—In short, you did not believe the movie was pornographic—

Mr Clark—I do not express personal views about this.

Senator McGAURAN—The board did not believe it was pornographic, yet they would not classify the movie. The review board thought it was pornographic, yet they classified the movie. What a muddle!

Mr Clark—If I apply the word ‘pornographic’ then obviously that is consistent with the board coming to an X decision. The reasons for the Classification Review Board’s decision are available. That is their justification for coming to a decision which shows the review board and the classification system working. A lot of people will disagree with that decision, but that is the decision that the review board have made. I would also add that there is a lot of material that is simulated sex which is classified R. It is not real but it is simulated sex, which is classified R—and that could also be described as pornographic.

Senator McGAURAN—You have to take into account, according to the classification, the prolonged nature of any offending scene or any scene at all. There are two questions here. The movie is a cheap 70 minutes long and 35 minutes of it, according to the critics, is sex. The real offending scene breaks a record, being the most prolonged of its kind. In the past you have always relied on a fleeting scene—you have used the word ‘fleeting’ quite often, or ‘not prolonged’, in any other reports you have on films. But here we have got a record: it is quite a long scene, with more than half the movie itself being one big sex scene.

What is the question? There has been no other movie with such a prolonged, intimate sex scene. Firstly, I am trying to establish that this movie is groundbreaking. And, secondly, where do you draw the line between ‘fleeting’ and ‘prolonged’, when half the movie—35 minutes—is taken up with it?

Mr Clark—The actual sex scenes in the film do not add up to 35 minutes. I believe that was a misreport in the press. There are two longer scenes of actual sex. There is a lot of what is, for all intents and purposes, simulated sex. There are two longer scenes of actual sex—one of approximately one minute and one of approximately two minutes—and several briefer depictions of actual sex identified in the review board’s reasons for its decision. It is not the 30 minutes described in the media, but there are those particular scenes that have been described. There is quite a lot of other simulated sexual activity but not detailed, explicit sexual activity.

Senator McGAURAN—But the true offending scene is not fleeting, is it? For the first time it is not.

Mr Clark—That would be the one of approximately one minute and one of approximately two minutes.

CHAIR—Senator McGauran, in light of the circumstances in which the committee finds itself, is it possible for you to put your further questions on notice, as the minister suggested?

Senator McGAURAN—No, but I only have two more—

CHAIR—I see.

Senator McGAURAN—providing I do not get sidetracked. Thank you for your patience. Another criterion you have to take into account is the type of audience you expect to see this movie. That is what the review board took into account too, as they said. In rejecting this movie, from your level, what type of audience did you think would be seeing this movie?

Mr Clark—The film is restricted to adults over the age of 18. The film would probably have a limited appeal in terms of the broader community. I would not want to make a judgment about those members of the community who may or may not choose to see the film, but I think that the amount of time it has been on exhibition would indicate that not a vast number in the community have taken the opportunity to view the film.

Senator McGAURAN—You cannot speak for the review board, can you.

Mr Clark—No.

Senator McGAURAN—Would your board take into account where the movie is going to be shown—in which theatres?

Mr Clark—The board takes that into account in coming to a decision. In my board’s decision, it was X18+, which means it would not be shown in cinemas; it would only be available from the ACT and the Northern Territory.

Senator McGAURAN—The review board took that criterion into account too. The movie is showing in one place in Collins Street, which is pretty mainstream, and on Fitzroy Street, St Kilda—mainstream again.

Mr Clark—That reflects the fact that the film now has an R18+ rating and it is quite permissible for it to be shown in public exhibition cinemas. But, as I say, from the amount of time that the film has been on the screens, not a vast proportion of the Australian adult community has actually gone to see the film.

Senator McGAURAN—Other than that it is an R rated movie for adults over 18, if you take into account where it is showing—which theatres it is being shown in—it is being shown in mainstream theatres.

Mr Clark—That is correct. That is consistent with the rating.

Senator McGAURAN—Heaven knows what the review board was ever taking into account. If it is being shown in the mainstream theatres, they are taking nothing into account, other than the rating.

Mr Clark—The rating is consistent with the ratings in other jurisdictions around the world. The film has been shown in similar circumstances in many places.

Senator McGAURAN—Of course, for someone who does not represent the review board, you do a good job defending them. This is my last question. No, I have two more.

CHAIR—One.

Senator McGAURAN—All right—I will make it a big one.

CHAIR—How will I tell the difference?

Senator McGAURAN—Mr Clark, you released the movie Irreversible with the offending scene in it and you issued it on artistic merit.

Mr Clark—No.

Senator McGAURAN—You did not?

Mr Clark—That is one of many criteria the board applies, so it was not a decision made solely on artistic merit. That is one of the things the board must consider in coming to a decision every time it makes a decision.

Senator McGAURAN—I put it to you that it was the overriding one. It was mutually exclusive to all the others. I was establishing in my earlier questioning about the meaning and all those other factors. They were so black and white you had to overcome them with some esoteric or subjective judgment. That was artistic merit, which has now become the overriding factor in the classification system. However, with Nine Songs they are a lot clearer. They admit it is pornographic—they admit this and that and everything else I have been speaking about—but it has artistic merit, which overrides all the classifications. So aren’t you just cherry-picking now? There is no holistic look at the classification system. In fact, you may as well get rid of the detailed classification system because you are now just cherry-picking to the mutual exclusion of everything else, and artistic merit is coming to the forefront here. I also put it to you—and it is quite obvious—that you and the higher board run to this artistic merit excuse every time you are caught with your backs to the wall. It has become the catch-cry to diminish the existing classification. I put it to you that Reid v Director-General of Social Services, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 1981, states that in exercising the discretion under the relevant section of the act:

... the decision-maker must have regard to whether, by exercising the discretion in a particular case, he will be achieving or frustrating ends or objects which are conformable with the scope and purpose of the Social Services Act 1947 ...

The act specifies the code and classification—words such as ‘demeaning’, ‘exploitation’ et cetera.

CHAIR—Senator McGauran—

Senator McGAURAN—You do not take them into account; you take artistic merit into account.

CHAIR—Senator McGauran, I am going to ask Mr Clark for a response and that will conclude his part of the examination.

Senator McGAURAN—Quite frankly, you would not hold up an Administrative Appeals Tribunal—

Senator Ellison—Madam Chair, we need the question, not the statement. If we can have the question, and if there are a series of them perhaps we can take them on notice—

CHAIR—And examine the Hansard and assess what the questions were.

Senator Ellison—and Mr Clark can have an opportunity to get back in detail to Senator McGauran.

CHAIR—Would the minister’s suggestion be satisfactory, Senator McGauran?

Mr Clark—I think the simple answer is no.

CHAIR—Mr Clark, would you assist the committee by examining the Hansard and extracting the questions from Senator McGauran’s statement and then responding to them?

Mr Clark—I will assist the committee—

CHAIR—Thank you very much. Senator McGauran, will the minister’s suggestion assist you? Thank you. Mr Clark and Mr Hunt, we appreciate your assistance to the committee this evening.

******

Following on from the last update, John Murphy (ALP for Lowe), has again been asking questions on behalf of the Religious Right.

Date: 23 May, 2005
Database: House Notice Paper
Number: 29
Session: Budget (2005)
Source: House

QUESTIONS IN WRITING

On the first sitting day of each fortnight, a complete Notice Paper is published containing all unanswered questions. On subsequent days, only new questions for the sitting are included in the Notice Paper. The full text of all unanswered questions is available at:

www.aph.gov.au/house/info/notpaper/qons.pdf.

*1403 MR MURPHY: To ask the Attorney-General—

(1) Can he confirm that the Classification Review Board has reviewed the decision of the Classification Board in respect of the film 9 Songs from X18+ to R18+, permitting explicit sex scenes to be viewed in mainstream theatres throughout Australia, as reported in the article titled ‘Uncomfortable position’ in The Australian on 4 May 2005; if so, can he explain the basis of this classification decision.

(2) Does the classification of 9 Songs as R18+ conform to the standards for the R18+ classification in the (a) Classification Code and (b) Classification Guidelines.

(3) Do all films depicting explicit sex scenes subject to assessment by the Office of Film and Literature Classification now fall within the R18+ category.

(4) What action will he take to prevent explicit sex scenes being screened in mainstream theatres.

(5) What is the current composition of the Classification Review Board.

(6) What is the statutory number of positions permitted on the (a) Classification Board and (b) Classification Review Board.

(7) Are churches, young Australians, elderly Australians and other persons represented on the (a) Classification Board and (b) Classification Review Board.

(8) What is the background of each of the eight members of the Classification Board and in which industries have they worked.

(9) Will he take action to broaden the representation on the (a) Classification Board and (b) Classification Review Board so that churches, consumer groups, the young, older Australians and other persons other than those currently on the board, are represented; if so, what; if not; why not.

******

The full Review Board reports have just been released for THE GORE GORE GIRLS and IN A GLASS CAGE.

******

This brings to five the number of films they have had banned this month.

******

The ACS have been busy recently with two reports of confiscations. DVD's of ANTHROPOPHAGOUS: THE BEAST and ENTRAILS OF A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN have both been taken. Keep those reports coming!

******

ABA News Release
NR 55/2005
19 May 2005

ABA finds Triple J broadcast inappropriate and gratuitous language and failed to respond to complaint

The Australian Broadcasting Authority has found that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation breached the ABC Code of Practice 2004 by using inappropriate and gratuitous language on the Triple J Breakfast Show and failing to to provide a response to a complaint.

On 10 February 2005, the ABA received a written complaint alleging that the Breakfast Show broadcast on the ABC’s Triple J network on 23 November 2004, used inappropriate language. The complainant also alleged that the broadcaster failed to respond to his complaint.

The ABA determined that the broadcaster:

The ABA notes that in response to the breach finding, the ABC has taken the following steps:

The ABA considers these actions address the compliance issues raised by the investigation and will continue to monitor the broadcaster's performance in this regard.

A copy of the investigation report is available on the ABA website at www.aba.gov.au.

***

ABA News Release
NR 60/2005
27 May 2005

Correction to ABA investigation report into Triple J breach

On the 19 May 2005 the Australian Broadcasting Authority published a report on its web site about an investigation into the use of inappropriate and gratuitous language on the Triple J Breakfast Show.

The report wrongly attributed the inappropriate and gratuitous language to Mr Wil Anderson, described in the report as ‘WA’. This attribution was based on information provided to the ABA by the broadcaster in submissions made in the course of the investigation. The ABA has since been advised of this mistake. The ABA apologises to Mr Anderson for this error in attribution of the comment and has corrected it in the report. The corrected report is now available on the ABA web site

******

ABA News Release
NR 57/2005
23 May 2005

ABA finds Desperate Housewives promo breached TV code

The Australian Broadcasting Authority has found that Channel Seven (Sydney) Pty Ltd, the licensee of commercial television service ATN Sydney and Channel Seven (Adelaide) Pty Ltd the licensee of commercial television service SAS Adelaide, breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2004, by broadcasting a program promotion classified M during sporting coverage.

In February and March 2005 the ABA received four complaints regarding the broadcast of a promotion for the M classified program Desperate Housewives on ATN and SAS.

The promotion was shown throughout the Seven network and was broadcast during the men's final of the Australian Open Tennis tournament after 8:30pm on Sunday 30 January 2005. The depiction of concern was one in which a female character was implied to have committed suicide. The promotion was preceded by a visual and audio warning that the promotion was classified ‘M’.

The period from 8:30pm is generally an M classification zone, however the commercial television code provides that, during certain programs, including live sporting events, program promotions must comply with the PG classification requirements. This is in recognition of the fact that, during such broadcasts, children are likely to comprise a higher percentage of the viewing audience than would generally be the case at this time. Additional safeguards are therefore needed to ensure material is suitable for younger audiences. The relevant code provisions are clauses 3.11 and 3.12.

Seven Network Ltd had acknowledged that the broadcast of M classified material was in breach of the code and had apologised to complainants. The complainants had, however, come to the ABA to further express concern about the suitability of the promotion material, particularly the treatment of suicide themes, for broadcast during a program in which large numbers of children were likely to be viewing.

The ABA is aware that suicide is a matter of considerable concern in the Australian community, and believes that particular care is necessary in dealing with this subject matter. This is especially the case at times when children are likely to be viewing.

The ABA therefore asked Seven Network Ltd to take further action to ensure that clause 3.11 is understood by network staff. This action included giving an undertaking to the ABA that Seven Network Ltd would provide the investigation report along with an explanation of the ABA’s findings to staff and implement information sessions across the network to discuss provisions of the code relating to the placement of promotions, particularly with regard to restrictions in G and PG programs. The ABA requested Seven Network Ltd undertake this action within a six month period and report back to the ABA on its compliance.

Seven Network Ltd has accepted the ABA’s request for an undertaking. It has also advised the ABA that it took action soon after the promotion was broadcast and prior to the ABA’s investigation, to conduct training with promotions staff in scheduling requirements, particularly those under clause 3.11.

A copy of the investigation report is available on the ABA web site at www.aba.gov.au.

******

ABA News Release
NR 56/2005
19 May 2005

ABA finds 3CAT Geelong failed to respond to complaint

The Australian Broadcasting Authority has found that Geelong Broadcasters Pty Ltd, the licensee of the commercial radio service 3CAT Geelong, breached the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2004 (the codes) by failing to to provide a response to a complaint.

On 21 February 2005, the ABA received a written complaint alleging that 3CAT had breached the codes by broadcasting matter that vilified Christians during the Morning Program of 20 December 2004. The complainant also alleged that the licensee failed to respond to his complaint.

The ABA determined that the licensee:

The ABA notes that in response to the breach finding, the licensee has forwarded an apology to the complainant together with an explanation of the action taken in regard to his complaint.

Noting that this is the first occasion on which the licensee of 3CAT has been found to be in breach of the complaints handling provisions of the codes, the ABA considers this action addresses the compliance issue raised by the investigation and will continue to monitor the licensee’s performance in this regard.

A copy of the investigation report is available on the ABA website at www.aba.gov.au

*****

ABA News Release
NR 59/2005
27 May 2005

New codes of practice for the Internet and mobile content

New community safeguards for the Internet and mobile telephone content are in place from today, with the registration by the Australian Broadcasting Authority of three new codes of practice for the Internet industry.

The three codes – one for Internet content hosts and two for Internet service providers – were developed by the Internet Industry Association. They replace the previous codes, registered by the ABA on 9 May 2002.

The IIA has developed the codes in response to recommendations contained in the Government’s May 2004 report on the operation of the co-regulatory scheme for Internet content, established under Schedule 5 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

Content Code 1 and Content Code 2 aim to improve Internet users’ access to Internet safety tools and information. They require Internet service providers to prominently display relevant links on their home pages, and to provide regular updates on these matters during the year. ‘It is important that families have easy access to accurate and reliable information about managing the risks associated with the Internet, and ISPs have important roles to play in educating their customers,’ said ABA Acting Chair, Lyn Maddock.

Content Code 2 also contains rules for content delivered to mobile telephones with audio-visual capabilities. This code prohibits mobile content that is or would be classified RC or X, and requires access to content classified R or MA to be restricted to users who ‘opt in’ to such services and verify that they are 18 years of age or older. The content codes use the National Classification Code categories that apply to films, DVDs and computer games. This will help ensure consistent treatment of content across fixed and mobile entertainment platforms.

‘The ABA welcomes the initiative and co-operation demonstrated by mobile carriers in developing community safeguards that will help to encourage development and take-up of new content services on the mobile platform,’ said Ms Maddock. ‘The codes aim to ensure that regulation of mobile content is consistent with measures for traditional ‘fixed’ platforms, but provide flexibility for mobile network operators to develop measures and procedures that are compatible with their individual business models.’

The codes will complement the provisions to be set out in a service provider determination on the supply of premium rate services on mobile telephones, currently being developed by the Australian Communications Authority. The service provider determination and Internet industry codes will together provide interim safeguards for all mobile content, and mobile network operators have given the ABA written undertakings that they will comply with all requirements of the codes and determination.

The ABA understands the Government is preparing legislative reforms to establish a permanent regulatory framework for content delivered to mobile and other convergent devices.

Content Code 3 contains a process for dealing with overseas-hosted Internet content that has been the subject of a complaint to the ABA and found to be prohibited. Such content is notified to the makers of selected Internet filter products, which ISPs must make available to their customers at the time an account is opened, either directly or via a filter software portal maintained by the IIA.

The codes will operate for 12 months, at which time they will be reviewed to take account of developments in filtering technologies and any community concerns which arise during this period.

The codes are accessible on the ABA’s web site at www.aba.gov.au and on the IIA’s web site at www.iia.net.au.

Media contact Donald Robertson, ABA Manager Media and PR on (02) 9334 7980.

BACKGROUNDER

The ABA administers a ‘co-regulatory’ scheme for Internet content. The scheme aims to address community concerns about offensive and illegal material on the Internet and, in particular, to protect children from exposure to material that is unsuitable for them.

The scheme is established under Schedule 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which gives the ABA the following functions:

John Murphy is the Labor member for the Sydney seat of Lowe (Drummoyne, Concord, Strathfield, Croydon, Haberfield). His question regarding the OFLC was undoubtedly made after lobbying by the Religious Right. As mentioned before, these groups are very well organised, and are on a mission to see censorship laws tightened in Australia. If you reside in the seat of Lowe and believe that John Murphy does not represent you, then send him a message.

Parliament House Contact
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Tel: (02) 6277 4099
Fax: (02) 6277 8530
Email: John.Murphy.MP@aph.gov.au

Electorate Office Contact
Burwood Office:
Location/Postal Address:
185G Burwood Road
Burwood NSW 2134

Tel: (02) 9745 4433
Fax: (02) 9745 2825

QUESTIONS IN WRITING: Office of Film and Literature Classification

Date: 12 May, 2005
Database: House Hansard
Questioner: Murphy, John, MP (Lowe, ALP, Opposition)
Responder: Ruddock, Philip, MP (Berowra, Attorney-General, LP)
Page: 125
Question no: 904
Type : Question
Main Committee: No
Proof: Yes
Source: House
Context: Questions in Writing

Mr Murphy (Lowe) asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 17 March 2005:

(1) Who are the members of the Classification Board in the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC).

(2) Who are the members of the Classification Review Board of the OFLC.

(3) Can he explain how these persons are representative of a cross section of Australian Society; if not, why not.

(4) What is the relationship between the 2003 Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games and the Classification Code.

(5) How has he ensured that the intent of the legislation providing for the classification of film and literature (ie. That the Classification Board’s and the Classification Review Board’s decisions reflect contemporary Australian community standards) is reflected in the Boards’ decisions.

(6) Can a member of the public initiate a review of a classification decision if they feel that it does not reflect contemporary community standards, if not, why not.

Answer

Mr Ruddock (Berowra—Attorney-General)—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

(1)  The members of the Classification Board are:

Des Clark (Director); Paul Hunt (Deputy Director); Wendy Banfield (Senior Classifier); Marie-Louise Carroll (Senior Classifier); Jeremy Fenton (Board Member); Alexandra Greene (Board Member); Robert Sanderson (Board Member); Rodney Smith (Board Member); Lynn Townsend (Board Member).

(2) The members of the Classification Review Board are:

Maureen Shelley (Convenor); Trevor Griffin (Deputy Convenor); Rob Shilkin (Review Board Member), Gillian Groom (Review Board Member), Kathryn Smith (Review Board Member) and Anthony Hetrih (Review Board Member).

(3) Subsections 48(2) and 74(2) of the Classification Act require that, in appointing members, regard is had to the desirability of ensuring that the membership of the Board is broadly representative of the Australian community. Subsections 48(3) and 74(3)) also require the Attorney-General to consult all States and Territories regarding appointments.

The Board as a whole is, to the extent possible, broadly representative of the Australian community.

Biographical information regarding the members of the Boards is published on the Office of Film and Literature Classification website (www.oflc.gov.au) and in the annual reports of the Boards. As this information indicates, members are drawn from diverse geographic areas, are of different ages and gender and have a diversity of life experiences and qualifications.

(4)  Under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act), the Board must make classification decisions in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the relevant classification guidelines (ie the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications or the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games). Various provisions of the Act are also relevant for decision making.

The Code provides that classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the principles set out in the introduction to the Code. The Code also prescribes the criteria against which publications, films and computer games are to be classified.

The Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (2003) have been determined under section 12 of the Classification Act and assist the Board to apply the criteria in the Code.

(5) The express purpose of the Act, as set out in section 3, is to provide for the classification of publications, films and computer games under the Commonwealth/State/Territory classification scheme.

A key principle underpinning the scheme is the application of Australian community standards to classification decision making.

First, the Boards are comprised of individuals so that the Board is, as a whole, broadly representative of the Australian community. Board members make classification decisions using the statutory framework of the national classification scheme and apply their understanding of community standards and the views of reasonable adults.

Secondly, Censorship Ministers ensure the tools used by the Boards (ie the National Classification Code and the Classification Guidelines) are reviewed and amended as appropriate to ensure that they remain current and continue to broadly reflect contemporary community standards. In accordance with the relevant intergovernmental agreement, such reviews include an opportunity for public input.

Thirdly, a number of mechanisms are used to keep Board members abreast of community standards, including consumer feedback on decisions and consumer research. In particular, the OFLC periodically engages independent researchers to convene Community Assessment Panels (CAPs) to gauge whether the classification decisions made by the Board align with contemporary community standards. In 2004, CAPs were convened in Alice Springs, Melbourne and Canberra. The independent report of that process found “the classification decisions of the Board generally reflect community standards”. This is consistent with the findings in respect of CAPs undertaken in 1997/98 (Sydney, Brisbane, Wagga Wagga) and 1999/2000 (Perth, Adelaide, Bendigo).

(6) Section 42 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 provides that an application for review of a classification decision made by the Classification Board may be made by any of the following:

the Minister (ie the Australian Attorney-General) 

an applicant for classification of the film, computer game or publication

the publisher of the classified item, and

a person aggrieved by the decision.

The Act also provides that if a participating Minister asks the Minister (ie the Attorney-General), in writing, to apply for a review of a decision, the Minister must do so. Accordingly, a member of the public could effectively initiate a review of a Classification Board decision if they persuaded a participating Minister that it was warranted and that Minister made a request of the Attorney-General.

A member of the public could be a person aggrieved by the decision. While it is difficult to set down precise parameters, ordinarily ‘a person aggrieved’ must be a person with an interest in the decision concerned which is greater than an ordinary member of the public.

There is no merits review of decisions made by the Review Board.

Section 42 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 provides that an application for review of a classification decision made by the Classification Board may be made by any of the following:

the Minister (ie the Australian Attorney-General)

an applicant for classification of the film, computer game or publication

the publisher of the classified item, and

a person aggrieved by the decision.

The Act also provides that if a participating Minister asks the Minister (ie the Attorney-General), in writing, to apply for a review of a decision, the Minister must do so. Accordingly, a member of the public could effectively initiate a review of a Classification Board decision if they persuaded a participating Minister that it was warranted and that Minister made a request of the Attorney-General.

A member of the public could be a person aggrieved by the decision. While it is difficult to set down precise parameters, ordinarily ‘a person aggrieved’ must be a person with an interest in the decision concerned which is greater than an ordinary member of the public.

There is no merits review of decisions made by the Review Board.

***

If you have any doubt about who Mr Murphy represents, then here are some of his previous questions. They were answered by Mr anti-abortion himself, Tony Abbot.

QUESTIONS IN WRITING: Abortion

Date: 08 February, 2005
Database: House Hansard
Questioner: Murphy, John, MP (Lowe, ALP, Opposition)
Responder: Abbott, Tony, MP (Warringah, Minister for Health and Ageing, LP)
Page: 110
Question no: 39
Type : Question
Main Committee: No
Proof: No
Source: House
Context: Questions in Writing

Mr Murphy (Lowe)  asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 16 November 2004:

(ARCHIVED) Premier to receive X-rated petition Courier-Mail 05.05.05

To coincide with Sexpo in Perth, the Eros Association are organising a petition to allow the legal sale of X18+ films in Western Australia. Fiona Patten from Eros is interviewed for the article:

"...... there would be five computer terminals available at Sexpo, which starts today, and about 10,000 people were expected to email their concerns to Dr Gallop.

While for a second time Gallery Entertainment were denied an X18+ rating for LICK MY GUSHING PUSSY.

******

Proud to ban. SMH 07.05.05

Takes a look at Nicole Moore's work into writing a history of Australia's censorship of literary obscenity.

"Australians like to think of themselves as a free country with a very open and tolerant society," she says. But Australian censors still have what she calls a strict interpretation of rules of classification.

After the first jury trial of literary censorship - over the banning of Portnoy's Complaint - book banning went out of fashion in the 1970s and '80s.

"Australia was arguably one of the worst censors in the Western world," she says. Proud to ban what was hot in London, Paris and New York, the Australian censors described their role as a "bulwark for Anglo-Saxon standards".

Even now, no one is sure how many books were banned - Moore is working on a database, with 4099 titles at last count.

******

Another song and dance about what can be shown at the movies. SMH 26.04.05

Steve Cannane takes a look at the Australian Family Association.

An article in The Age last year said it had 3000 members. But Raena Lea-Shannon, the lawyer who represents films such as 9 Songs and is a member of Watch on Censorship, thinks this is an exaggeration.

"You've got to make a distinction between the active members and those on the mailing list," Lea-Shannon said. "There may be several thousand members but I understand from my research of public domain information the active membership is probably several hundred."

The Australian Bureau of Statistics says that at the time of the last census there were 4,936,828 families, comprising 14,845,780 people.

That's a lot of families who have nothing to do with the Australian Family Association. Yet it continues to say it represents a majority of Australian families. So why is it allowed to represent Australian families at the Classification Review Board?

***

The article received some comment in the SMH letters page.

27.04.05
Congratulations to Steve Cannane on his article regarding the dubious claims of the Australian Family Association of being representative, as their name suggests ("Another song and dance about what can be shown at the movies", Herald, April 26).

They promote themselves as being a moderate organisation focused on speaking for a broad cross-section of Australian families, but all I have seen is a right-wing agenda that extends to censorship and, more worryingly, the promotion of the discriminatory and downright unfounded view that gay families are somehow a threat to the rest of our society.

As the product of the "traditional" nuclear family, and now having such a family myself, I am horrified that such an organisation is viewed as potentially representing myself.

***

I, too, have wondered about the obsession the Australian Family Association seems to have with the very few provocative art-house movies released in Australia, which would only be seen by a handful of cinema-goers.

Of course, it gives the association a profile that it would otherwise never have. It is not representative of Australians or even most families, as research from the Office of Film and Literature Classification shows. I think the press and the Attorney-General would do us all a favour and save our tax money by ignoring it.

Margaret Pomeranz
Watch on Censorship
Pyrmont

******

On the subject of the AFA, the film BIRTH is now in general release. This is a title that they had wanted to see banned. Also out, on May 12th, is 9 SONGS. The AFA were an interested party in the Review that eventually saw the rating dropped from X18+ to R18+. Send a "fuck you!" to these religious wowsers by catching both films during their theatrical release.

******

Attorney-General
The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
News Release 
6 May 2005
074/2005

NEW APPOINTMENTS TO THE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW BOARD

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced the appointments of Gillian Groom and Anthony Hetrih, and the re-appointment of Kathryn Smith, as members of the Classification Review Board.

The Classification Review Board is responsible for reviewing, upon application, Classification Board decisions regarding films, publications and computer games on behalf of the Australian, State and Territory Governments.

The Review Board is comprised of individuals so that, as a whole, it is broadly representative of the Australian community. Review Board members, as statutory appointees, endeavour to make decisions, applying the classification tools, which reflect as objectively as possible what they consider to be the standards of reasonable adults in the community, rather than the personal standards of members.

The appointments are effective immediately and will conclude in April 2008.

Mrs Groom is a Consultant Occupational Therapist and University Tutor from Tasmania. She is the mother of six adult children. She has been involved in many professional associations, the arts, sporting and charity organisations.

Mr Hetrih, the father of a young child, is from Victoria. He is a writer specialising in technology and computer games. He has a background in marketing and communications, and has a demonstrated and long-standing professional interest in the effects of computer games on children. He is currently researching for a guidebook for parents on the subject of computer games.

Mrs Smith is a mother of three from New South Wales. She has lived in Tasmania for most of her life, but currently lives in Sydney. She has worked as a social worker, TAFE teacher and Employee Assistance Counsellor. Mrs Smith is currently at home caring for her family and studying part-time. This is Mrs Smith’s second term on the Classification Review Board, having been a member since June 2001.

“I am pleased that Mrs Groom, Mr Hetrih and Mrs Smith have agreed to provide their valuable skills and experience to assist the important work of the Classification Review Board,” Mr Ruddock said.

The Classification Review Board is a part-time Board that meets in Sydney at the Office of Film and Literature Classification.

******

Twentieth Century Fox are appealing against the M rating awarded to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. This is the harshest rating awarded to any of the series.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
6 May 2005
Media Release

Review announced for the film Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the film, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, directed by George Lucas.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith was classified M with the consumer advice, “Moderate science-fiction violence”, by the Classification Board on 3 May 2005.

The Classification Review Board will meet on Wednesday 11 May 2005 to consider the application.

The Classification Review Board’s decision and reasons for its decision will appear on the OFLC website once the review has 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.

******

The Review Board has dropped the MA15+ rating awarded to KINGDOM OF HEAVEN to an M.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
2 May 2005
Media Release

Review announced for the film Kingdom of Heaven

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the film, Kingdom of Heaven, directed by Ridley Scott.

Kingdom of Heaven was classified MA15+ with the consumer advice, “Medium level violence”, by the Classification Board on 26 April 2005.

The Classification Review Board will meet on Wednesday 4 May 2005 to consider the application.

The Classification Review Board’s decision and reasons for its decision will appear on the OFLC website once the review has 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.

***

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
6 May 2005
Media Release

Kingdom of Heaven classified M upon review

A 5-member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a majority 4 to 1 decision, that the film, Kingdom of Heaven, directed by Ridley Scott, is classified M with the consumer advice, “Moderate violence, Frequent battle violence.”

M is an advisory classification. Films classified M are not recommended for persons under 15 years of age.

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, Kingdom of Heaven warrants an M classification because, although the film contains a number of violent scenes, their impact is no higher than moderate in the context of an historic battle epic.

“Parents should pay close attention to the consumer advice when deciding if they should allow their children to see films at the M classification”, Classification Board Convenor, Maureen Shelley said. “Some battle scenes in this film contain battle wounding including blood spurts, though they won’t show more graphic detail like flesh, bone and gore. However, this is not mild content. These sequences have a moderate impact. Films classified M require a more mature perspective than children under 15 may have.”

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Twentieth Century Fox Film Distributors Pty Ltd, to review the MA15+ classification of Kingdom of Heaven made by the Classification Board on 26 April 2005.

In reviewing the classification, the Classification Review Board worked within the framework of the National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games.

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. This Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board.

The Classification Review Board’s reasons for this decision will appear on the OFLC website when finalised.

******

The full Review Board report has been released for GUESS WHO. The Review Board refused to lower the rating from M to PG.

6 April 2005

23-33 MARY STREET
SURRY HILLS NSW 2010

MEMBERS: The Hon Trevor Griffin (Deputy Convenor)
Ms Dawn Grassick
Mr Robert Shilkin

APPLICANT: Twentieth Century Fox (Fox), original applicant for classification, represented by Mr Chris Smith (Twentieth Century Fox) and Mr John Dickie (expert witness).

INTERESTED

PARTIES: None

BUSINESS: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film Guess Who? (the film) ‘M’ with the consumer advice “Sexual References”.

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) classified the film ‘M’ with the consumer advice “Sexual References”.

The Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act) governs the classification of films and the review of classification decisions. Section 9 of the Act provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines.

Relevantly, the Code in paragraph 5 of the Table under the heading “Films” provides that:

Films (except RC films, X films, R films, MA films) that cannot be recommended for viewing by persons who are under 15

are to be classified ‘M’. The Code also sets out various principles to which classification decisions should give effect, as far as possible.

Section 11 of the Classification Act requires that the matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a film include:

(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; and

(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film; and

(c) the general character of the film, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character; and

(d) the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.

Three essential principles underlie the use of the 2003 Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (the Guidelines), determined under s.12 of the Act:

• The importance of context

• Assessing impact

• Six classifiable elements – themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity.

The Review Board met on 6 April 2005 in response to the receipt of a valid application from the applicant Twentieth Century Fox, heard submissions by the representatives of Fox and viewed the film.

In reaching its decision the Review Board had regard to the following:

(i) Fox’s application for review;

(ii) Fox’s oral submissions;

(iii) The film;

(iv) The relevant provisions in the Act;

(v) The relevant provisions in the Code, as amended in accordance with s.6 of the Act

(vi) The Classification Board’s report; and

(vii) The Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2003

The film is a comedy in which a black woman brings home her white male partner to introduce him to her parents, intending to inform her parents that she intends to marry the man.

The Review Board noted a number of scenes which contained sexual references and sexual innuendo. These scenes included but were not limited to:

• About 14:45, the father of the woman asks the taxi-driver (mistaken for her male friend that she is bringing home): “Are you doing everything to make my daughter happy?” to which the taxi-driver replies: “I’d sure like a crack at it”. This is repeated in similar terms when the taxi-driver turns to leave. The sexual innuendo is quite apparent and unsubtle.

• 20:30: Male puts on lingerie, teases his girlfriend and smacks his bottom in a mildly sexually provocative manner. The pair are then caught in an apparent sexual position (full clothed) on the bed.

• 26:00: A female and her sister talk about the size of white men’s penises and the ability of her boyfriend’s penis to “sing”. There is another reference to this conversation in the restaurant at about 33:00.

• 36:00 and 39:00: the father makes references to his relief that his daughter is not being “violated”.

• About 72:00: there is a reference to the boyfriend cheating on his girlfriend “just the one time and you caught me”. The sexual innuendo is apparent.

The Review Board considered that while some of the innuendo may be “lost” on younger children, there were a number of sexual references that were quite unsubtle, direct and blatant. The most obvious of these was the scene in which the two females discuss penis size. The Review Board found that the fact that it was two women discussing this topic increased the impact of the scene.

While the impact of each individual scene was not necessarily higher than mild, the Review Board considered that there were sexual references and innuendo at fairly frequent intervals throughout the film and, taken together, the impact was higher than mild.

The Review Board also considered that the language throughout the film added to the impact of the scenes described above. For example, the word “shit” is used at least 10 times, and “ass” is used with some frequency, sometimes in conjunction with sexual references and sexual innuendo.

The Review Board found that the cumulative impact of the scenes described above was higher than mild but no higher than moderate.

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, after considering the matters referred to in the Act, Code and Guidelines, the film warrants an M classification rather than a PG classification. The consumer advice is “Sexual References”.

******

If there is one thing I hate more than OFLC censorship, it's BBFC censorship that flows down to Australia. This is a long-standing problem, the latest example of which is the R4 Hong Kong Legends release of EASTERN CONDORS. The British censors demanded 22 seconds of cuts in March 2001. This same version was submitted to the OFLC who passed it R18+ (Medium Level Violence) in November 2004.

In Australia, the uncut version was passed for Chinese Language theatrical release in the late 80's. There is also a VHS from the mid-90's on the Siren's Chinatown Video label.

Don't support these lazy distributors who dump cut versions on the Australian market. If you have purchased this disc and feel cheated, then demand a refund!

Another disc to avoid is the MRA Entertainment release of Dario Argento's CREEPERS. This is the first time that this shortened version has been seen in Australia. Despite the mid-80's Palace Video release being under the same title, it was actually the longer cut. As the review at Michael D's explains, you are much better to pay a little more and purchase the uncut R4 Umbrella Entertainment disc.

Three members of the Review Board viewed the film. Two voted for it to be banned. The third member got it correct

"The minority view was that the film should be classified R18+ as the impact was no more than high, due to the unrealistic, “schlock-horror” nature of the special effects."

As mentioned last update, there is absolutely no way that this contains stronger material than any of the films that the OFLC have happily awarded R18+ ratings over the past couple of years.

As always, make your thoughts known to the OFLC. 

******

PLAYBOY: THE MANSION has been added to the games database. It was passed with an MA15+ rating last year.

******

The Victorian Classification Bill a second reading yesterday.

Title CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) (ENFORCEMENT) (AMENDMENT) BILL
House COUNCIL
Activity Second Reading
Members STRONG
Date 19 April 2005
Page 421

19 April 2005 COUNCIL

Page 421

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

Second reading
Debate resumed from 24 March; motion of Hon. J. M. MADDEN (Minister for Sport and Recreation).

Hon. C. A. STRONG (Higinbotham) -- In rising to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) (Amendment) Bill I indicate that the opposition will not be opposing this legislation. In general we know that in the broader arena there is an enormous amount of what is generally termed content out there in the marketplace, whether it be in films, television programs, video games, books or everything else.

There is an enormous amount of entertainment-type material out there for people to look at, to enjoy or to be offended by, as the case may be.

One of the key issues is how do you know what a piece of content is all about. Certainly if we look at the newspapers we see on a fairly regular basis a lot of blurbs promoting a particular movie, TV program, video game or whatever. There is information out there by the people who have produced or manufactured that piece of content promoting it to various audiences. There are promotions on television screens, there are promotions on film screens, and almost every day in every newspaper there is some sort of enclosure or special supplement dealing with so-called entertainment. These generally refer to the content of TV programs, movies, music or whatever.

Those things that include all this information and bring it to public attention are in many cases advertising, advertorials and so on.

How does a person know what is appropriate? How do they know whether that particular piece of entertainment is something they would find interesting or something they would find disgusting? How do they know whether it is something they would not want their children or their wife to see? How can they get an understanding? How do they know what is involved? One of the ways that is done is by the classification of the particular material. This seeks to give an independent indication of the suitability of that material for a particular audience. This is because, as I said, if you simply read the promotions and advertorials in the newspapers and other places, they are obviously more interested in promoting a product than saying whether or not it is suitable for a particular audience.

Page 422

Quite clearly there is a need for a classification system to advise people on whether the content of certain material is appropriate for their needs, the needs of their families and the needs of the public. This is key information for the public. It is particularly important for parents to be advised whether the content is appropriate for their children to see. It can tell them whether it contains extreme violence or extreme sex, whether it encourages the making of bombs or whether it glorifies terrorists such as those who blew up the World Trade Centre in New York and so on. It can tell them what the material is about and whether they should be letting their children and others see it. The classification system is an aid in doing that, and it aids parents in particular by giving some indication of the suitability of the material.

In a theoretical sense that is all very well and good, but when we look at the skill and ease with which children and other young people use the Internet today we need to realise that to a great extent its content is not classified and not censored. It seems to me that when parents studiously tell children they cannot go to a particular movie because of its classification -- it might have extreme sex or something unsuitable in it -- or watch it on television at home, the truth of the matter is that they can log onto the Internet and get it anyway. At the end of the day, to a very large extent this whole issue of content and its classification is severely compromised by the Internet. As in so many things, the right course we should be adopting as a society is to encourage people to be responsible in all their behaviour. That includes their behaviour on viewing content, whatever it might be, whether it be in the form of film, the Internet or whatever.

In essence, this bill seeks to modify and amend the existing system.

What is the existing system? We have a national system of classifications which has been agreed to by all states -- it is a scheme by agreement. It would be ridiculous to have one form of classification in Victoria and another form of classification in New South Wales so it makes eminent sense that, as has been the case for quite a few years, this be a national scheme to which all the states have agreed.

The commonwealth has legislation in place. That legislation provides for a classification board which goes through and classifies films, videos, compact discs, computer games and publications in accordance with a national classification code and guidelines. In a way that is where the federal jurisdiction ends. It is then up to each particular state or territory to enforce those classification decisions in its jurisdiction.

That is essentially where this bill comes in -- it talks about harmonising the new system of classifications so Victoria is consistent with the rest of Australia, and about particular enforcement issues as they refer to Victoria.

Specifically what does the bill do? The main thing the bill does is amend the nomenclature of classifications. I think we can all remember, because we are all old enough and have seen these things, the general classifications. There is a G classification for 'general' for films; there is a PG classification for 'parental guidance'; there is an R classification for 'restricted'; and also an X classification for 'restricted'. These classifications are the ones which currently apply to films. We can all remember those classifications, in many cases from our youth when we liked to go and see some of these X-rated movies or whatever. However, that nomenclature is changed by this bill and it is worth going into why.

The reasons for these changes go to the question of technology. That has come about because of video games, DVDs and so on, which are new technology. In 2003 new classification guidelines were issued to sweep up computer games, videos et cetera, and they were given a whole series of classifications. It probably would not be a surprise to anybody to hear that the classifications given to computer games and DVDs were different to those given to movies. This caused quite a bit of confusion. For instance, where we might have had the old M classification for movies, for computer games the classification was M (15+). In other words, we had a different nomenclature for the classification if it was a film or a computer game. Clearly, that is cause for confusion and is a pretty stupid situation to be in. Therefore, this bill basically aligns those classifications so that regardless of whether something is a film, a computer game or a DVD it will be classified with the same nomenclature.

In essence, where we had an MA (15+) classification for films and computer games under the old system, the classification brought in by this bill is MA 15+ -- in other words the existing classifications have been brought into line to make them consistent across films, video games, DVDs et cetera so that there is a clear understanding. When a person sees a classification they will know what it is for a movie, a DVD, a computer game or whatever. The need for this was accentuated by the fact that because film classifications had been around for a long time most people understood what they were, but most people did not understand the classifications for video games or even know that they existed. There is a good case for bringing them into line. The bill will ensure that we have one system, and it will be the same regardless of the medium.

Page 423

I wish to touch briefly on some of the key issues of the new nomenclature, because there is a distinction between legally enforceable classifications and those which are advisory. Classifications that include an age reference -- for instance, MA 15+ or MA 18+ -- indicate a legally enforceable age limit for the classification. Where there are just letters -- for example, PG or A -- that is a recommendation, an advisory classification. That is the key change the bill makes, and it is absolutely appropriate that the nomenclature for these classifications be unified.
A couple of other little changes are important. The first deals with the forfeiture of goods and the significant toughening up of the forfeiture conditions. Essentially, if the owner of a video or computer games shop is found to be significantly breaching the act as it applies to serious issues -- for instance, with things that are classified as being restricted and so on -- the totality of their stock can be taken away by the police.

Whether or not all the stock was incorrectly classified, all of it can be removed if it is established that the offence involves 10 or more films that breach one of the serious classifications. The total removal of stock is a fairly significant penalty. If the owner wants to get the stock back, even if there was nothing wrong with the classification, use and so on of that stock, they have to go to a magistrate and ask for the stock to be returned. This significant procedure involves time, costs and general hassles. The new forfeiture provisions are fairly draconian.

There are new provisions to do with evidentiary certificates. Obviously the classification of a particular bit of content is based on the classification given to it by the classification board, and that is evidenced by a certificate which says that a particular video is classified as XYZ. To make it quite clear how the law will operate, copies of those evidentiary certificates can be accepted by the court.

It is now not necessary for a piece of content, which is to all intents and purposes the same as one which already has an evidentiary certificate, to go through the whole process of having a separate certificate.

The bill also deals with the question of child exploitation, particularly the use of under-age children in videos, or alternatively people who are not under age but who are acting as if they are under age, bringing the legislation into line with the international code which says that under age is now less than 18 years rather than 16 years. So it changes the age limit to bring it into line with the International Labor Organisation convention which says that the cut-off for children is 18 years rather than 16 years.

That is a brief run-down of what the bill does, and the opposition is not opposing it. The bill rightly seeks to tidy up the nomenclature of these classifications and to that extent it is worthy of our support.

Sitting suspended 6.28 p.m. until 8.02 p.m.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) -- This legislation could be styled a commonsense bill. It is, in a sense, template legislation in that it is regularising classifications for these publications, films, computer games and the like Australia wide. I think that is a sensible provision.

This material knows no boundaries, and it would be a farcical situation if the states had differing rules and regulations applying to this sort of material. It would be impossible to police, it would be impossible for consumers to understand and comprehend what their rights and obligations were, and it would be a case of states' rights gone berserk if we attempted to have separate legislation in one or more of the states that was somehow or other different to that in others.

In that vein, I applaud and congratulate the relevant ministers of the commonwealth, the states and the territories for reaching this agreement, because censorship and classification of objectionable material is a very difficult area indeed.

Sometimes offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder, and it can be easily contemplated that different governments of different complexions right across the political spectrum might on occasions have difficulty reaching a consensus. This might particularly be so on issues such as this, where there are all sorts of pressures coming on politicians and ministers from numerous lobby groups and pressure groups in the community. These pressures come both from those who want to take, for want of a better word, a really wowserish line and endeavour to prevent any of this material being in the public arena and from those who want to take a very liberal line and virtually have no restrictions and no controls at all.

To that extent I think it is laudable that we have been able to reach some common ground in this legislation, and we are embodying it tonight so that it applies nationwide.

I have always found this issue difficult. I can recall, as I am sure many of my contemporaries can also do, the arguments going on in the days when I was at school; the views held by some politicians, rightly or wrongly; and the views ascribed to some politicians, rightly or wrongly, by the media.

I well remember the then Chief Secretary of this state, Sir Arthur Rylah, having fun poked at him for a remark

Page 424

he made in this Parliament about what he may or may not like his teenage daughter to read. I think Sir Arthur was reflecting widely held views in the community at the time and he was a bit unfairly treated on that occasion by some elements of the media.
I have generally taken the view that adults in a democratic and liberal society ought to be free to make their own decisions about what they watch and what they read. That has not always sat comfortably with some of my party colleagues, particularly in my branches. No doubt there is grave concern in some parts of the community today as to the type of material that is reasonably freely available in our community -- and that is not taking into account the Internet, which I am told by many people, including Mr Strong before dinner, contains a wide variety of material there for the looking. I have never been very good on computers, and I certainly need to lift my game in seeking some of this stuff out.

I had a look over the dinner break, and I did find some objectionable material I have to admit -- --

Ms Mikakos -- Purely for research, Mr Baxter!

Hon. W. R. BAXTER -- Purely for research, Ms Mikakos, just to see if these allegations that were being made actually had the strength that is attributed them. Presumably they do if you know where to look. I clearly was not looking in quite the right places, but that is not to say that they are not easily found by children who are much more expert at operating this technology than I am. One only has to look, for example, at The Nationals conference in Wangaratta only the weekend before last, where there was debated a motion that the conference request greater censorship of MA -- mature audience -- and R-rated programs being screened on television and a total ban on programs and advertising including violence or sexual activity being screened before 9.30 p.m.

This reflects a widespread concern in the community that much of this material is on television at times when young people in particular can see it. That is a concern in these days when we have less parental supervision and guidance than might have been the case when I was a child. I understand the sentiments that were expressed by the supporters of the resolution. Quite often it is the trailers for these programs, which are shown early in the evening advertising something that is going to be on later that night, that are in themselves quite graphic and perhaps send messages to children that we would rather not be sent. In a sense I share their concerns. I certainly understand their concerns, and certainly I have had a lot of trouble on occasions fathoming why so many in our community seem to thrive on a diet of violence on television. I do not mean just pornographic stuff, sexual activity and so on; I am talking about shootings, murders, assaults and so on.

Maybe I am an odd one out, I do not know, but so many of these programs which have high ratings on the television seem to me to be based on the same pattern. They are the same week after week. The plot is always the same: there is going to be shooting, there is going to be a murder, there is going to be a car chase, there is going be an arrest, someone is going to go to jail and the like. I know what the result will be, and I could not be bothered watching them, but thousands do, so there is clearly some attraction to those sorts of programs. But I often wonder what sorts of attitudes they are inculcating in our community. Are they inculcating the opinion and the view that assaulting someone with a weapon, fist or whatever is quite acceptable in our community? Clearly it is not, but you can perhaps understand why young people think a resort to physical violence is okay, because they are getting a diet of that on television night after night. I find it mysterious why that is so.

Obviously in this day and age when we have such a high standard of living many homes have more than one television. In the old days when there was a single television in the house there was perhaps a bit of a consensus among family members as to what they watched; there had to be some sort of agreement. I have to confess that in my own home there are three televisions. There is seldom more than one on at any particular time, but it does mean that you no longer need to have a consensus on what the family will watch -- they can all go off to their own tellies and watch what they like. This seems to me to be introducing a whole new element into the way families might bring up their children -- what they should watch and what is acceptable behaviour. Of course the parents probably have precious little influence or control over what their kids look at on the Internet and the like, notwithstanding the Net Nanny or whatever other software is available to sift out and restrict what children can have access to on their computers.

I acknowledge that it is getting more and more difficult for parents to supervise what their children watch, and therefore it is more and more important that we send clear messages to parents about the content of stuff that is classified. In the past there has been some confusion about the various elements of the material that is classified, whether it is printed or is films or computer games or the like, so I certainly support the legislation from that point of view.

Page 425

I suppose the other thing we have to take into account printed or as parliamentarians is that we have to react to and to a degree cater for what is the demand in the community. In the past decade or so the term 'non-violent erotica' has crept into the language. I have to say, looking at the statistics and seeing the number of adult shops that are about the place, there is clearly a demand for that material in our community. There are two such shops in the main street of my local town, Wodonga, which is a city of 30 000 people. I wonder how it can sustain two shops in the main street selling this material, but they have been there for several years now, so clearly they are making a profit. I am not game to go and have a look at them in my own town in case I am spied by one of my conservative constituents as I come out the door, but I have done some research into these shops in other places.

Mr Pullen -- We won't tell anyone, Bill.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER -- No, of course you would not -- I have just put it on the record. There are two in Shepparton, for example, which is also in my electorate, and now there is an application for another one, which is causing a good deal of concern in the community. That is understandable, I suppose, but some of it is perhaps misplaced. But it illustrates that there is a demand in the community for that sort of material. I am not protesting about the demand, I am acknowledging that it exists, but what I think we have to be careful about is that the material that is available in those sorts of outlets meets this classification of non-violent erotica that satisfies some people's fantasies -- and there is no doubt that it does. I am not one of those people who think this sort of material inflames passions and leads to people going out and actually exercising their fantasies. I think it does the opposite, frankly.

It is an outlet for them and satisfies them more than encourages them to engage in untoward behaviour, but we need to be clear and certain that we have a system in place to ensure that what these outlets are offering the public, or retailing to the customer, meets the definition of non-violent erotica and that it is not being used as a means of getting around the law and selling some of the more objectionable stuff which is clearly available.

I have some concerns with the technology that is available now and the ease with which DVDs and the like can be pirated. Perhaps we are opening the door or giving smart operators an opportunity to organise some sort of criminal activity and market this stuff. We all notice in our suburban newspapers -- and I have noticed in some of my country newspapers -- advertisements offering to deliver X-rated videos to your door; there is no address, only a mobile phone number.

I do not know how objectionable this stuff is -- I have not rung up to get a sample -- but it seems to me that there is some scope there for organised crime to make, for want of a better word, a killing by offering this stuff via the back door, so to speak, because, as I have indicated, there does appear to be a demand in the community for certain types of erotica.

Does getting caught up with non-violent erotica then lead to seeking out more graphic stuff? I do not know. I do not know whether anyone has done the research on it. I am not advocating that we make the more violent material available, but what I am saying is there is an avenue there for the criminal element to perhaps become the marketers of such material. I do not envy the police force at all in this aspect of its work. It is extremely difficult to get convictions, and it is extremely unpleasant work in that it needs to be done, although there seems to be more pressing stuff out there in the community for the police to be taking an interest in.

Unless the police are on top of it, we will see the criminal element increasingly turn to the sale of objectionable material as a means of making its nefarious income.

The Nationals are pleased to support this legislation. We understand and acknowledge there is widespread concern within the community about where we are going in terms of the availability of offensive material, particularly on the Internet. This is an element in the armoury to control that material. It is not the full answer, but being national template-type legislation it is obviously a worthy initiative.

Ms MIKAKOS (Jika Jika) -- I rise to speak in support of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) (Amendment) Bill. I note at the outset that this bill does a number of things. It deals essentially with three key areas, and I want to discuss each of those fairly quickly.

The bill relates to the introduction of uniform classification-type names for films and computer games. It improves the operation and effectiveness of enforcement action and ensures that the act complies with the International Labour Organisation Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. These amendments will assist all Victorians to make informed decisions about what they are viewing. They will make it easier for Victoria Police to successfully prosecute people who commit offences under the legislation. The bill also demonstrates the Bracks government's commitment to protecting children from being involved and exploited in pornographic films or material.

Page 426

I turn to the first area of reform that I have just indicated. I note that the amendments seek to implement uniform classification types for films and computer games as agreed to by all censorship ministers at a meeting held in November 2003. It was agreed that all jurisdictions would seek to introduce a uniform and more easily understood classification scheme for films and computer games. The amendments agreed to by the ministers across all jurisdictions will create common classifications for films and computer games based on the current classifications for films. The proposal to rename the classifications will not affect the type of material that will be permissible within each classification.
The other area that the bill relates to, as I indicated, deals with greater effectiveness of enforcement action. It does this in a number of ways.

In relation to evidentiary certificates, for example, the bill contains amendments that will improve the operation of the classification act by remedying a technicality which is currently hindering successful prosecution of classification offences in this state. Section 78 of the principal act provides evidentiary force to a certificate which the director of the Office of Film and Literature Classification is empowered to provide under section 87 of the commonwealth classification act.

The evidentiary certificate states the relevant classification if any of the film, publication or computer game is required so as to prove offences under the classification act. The bill amends section 78 to make it clear that an evidentiary certificate under the commonwealth act can be relied upon in a prosecution under the Victorian act as evidence of classification or non-classification at a date or dates in the past.

The bill also makes a number of changes in relation to duplicate copies. Currently it is costing Victoria Police in the range of $110 to $200 to obtain an evidentiary certificate for duplicate copies of films or computer games, and the amendments in the legislation will seek to enable Victoria Police not to have to incur this unnecessary expense in relation to duplicate copies.

The final area that the bill relates to and which I want to spend the most time discussing relates to compliance with the International Labor Organisation Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. I note that the Bracks government unequivocally supports the objectives of the ILO convention which seeks to eliminate the worst forms of child labour, including the use, procuring or offering of a child under 18 for prostitution, production of pornography or for pornographic purposes.

The government has consulted very widely in respect of the whole legislation and I note that it actively sought the views of Victoria Police, the Office of Public Prosecutions, the Office of Film and Literature Classification and adult industry stakeholder groups.

After the bill had been introduced in the other house the government became aware through representations made to it by local film producers of concerns about some aspects of this part of the legislation. The government was prepared to make some changes through house amendments which were introduced and agreed to in the other house.

The amendments are related to changes to the sexual depiction age in the definitions of 'objectionable material', 'objectionable films' and 'objectionable publications' from under 16 years of age to under 18 years of age.

This may have had the unintended effect of limiting some types of films, particularly those that may have related to the coming-of-age type of story lines; films we have seen in the past, such as Somersault and The Year My Voice Broke, but certainly those kinds of films were not intended to be caught up in the provisions of the legislation.

The amendments made in the other house rectify this issue. Child pornography will still be identified and captured as films or publications that are 'refused classification', that is the RC classification, or if unclassified would be classified RC, which is already provided for under the national classification code. A film will be an 'objectionable film' if it would be classified X or RC under the national classification code. This brings Victoria's definitions of 'objectionable film', 'objectionable material' and 'objectionable publications' in line with other jurisdictions.

The amendments ensure that Victoria fulfils its obligations under the International Labour Organisation (ILO) convention and the national classification code.

The bill is seeking to strike an appropriate balance between the need to protect children and the importance of complying with the ILO convention, with safeguards for the Victorian film industry to produce legitimate artistic films. Victorian film-makers have a highly respected reputation for making fine films which goes back over 100 years. A number of very successful Victorian films have been made; our film-makers have been and continue to be regarded as leaders in the Australian film industry. I note in particular films such as Picnic at Hanging Rock, The Man from Snowy River, The Castle, Mad Max, Romper Stomper, Chopper, Crackerjack and Japanese Story, to name just a few.

Page 427

The Bracks government has been a strong supporter of the Victorian film industry. Our commitment to ensuring the industry thrives for decades to come has seen a significant investment in the establishment of the Central City Studios at Docklands. Stage 1 is now fully operational and five sound stages, production offices and ancillary services are in constant demand. Stage 2, the construction of an additional 6000 square metres of warehouse space, will begin in June. These and other existing facilities will no doubt continue to attract the attention of more local and international film-makers to our state.
We have achieved an appropriate balance between continuing to protect children, the most vulnerable members of our community, and taking a very strong position in relation to the abhorrence that the government and the community feel for child pornography whilst also enabling our film industry to continue with appropriate safeguards.

The final matter I wish to allude to briefly is the classification of computer games. I note this is a matter of interest to tens of thousands of adult computer games enthusiasts. Under the national classification scheme there is currently no R 18+ classification for computer games. Currently games considered to be above MA 15+ are refused classification and banned from sale or hire throughout Australia. The possibility of an R 18+ classification for computer games was considered in the past in a combined review of the classification guidelines for films and computer games. A review was undertaken by the Office of Film and Literature Classification on behalf of the commonwealth, state and territory censorship ministers. The findings of that review were discussed in November 2002, and new combined guidelines for films and computer games were approved by participating ministers.

However, these guidelines did not include an R 18+ classification for computer games as South Australia and the commonwealth objected to this at that time.

I note that at that time the Bracks government was in caretaker mode, given this was in November 2002, so Victoria did not participate in the approval process.

Victoria supports the inclusion of an R 18+ rating for computer games. Unfortunately this is not achievable at the present time because, as I indicated, all jurisdictions would need to agree to it. Just as adults have a choice of what films they see, adults who play computer games should have a choice. Long gone are the days when computer games were the sole domain of children and young people. These days computer games are frequently played by adults. I agree with the sentiments expressed by previous speakers that if the exploitation of children and other vulnerable members of the community is not involved in the production of either these types of films or computer games then adults should be able to make informed decisions as to what types of films or computer games they wish to participate in.

I certainly do not seek to make moral judgments about these matters. It is not something that interests me, but as Mr Baxter has indicated in his contribution, there seems to be a great deal of demand for this type of material in our society, and I think we would be taking a blinkered view if we did not acknowledge that that is in fact the case.

In conclusion I note that this is an important bill. It supports the choices made by adults as to what they wish to view, it sends a clear message to those flouting the law that they will be identified and prosecuted, and it provides greater protection to children who are exploited in the worst possible way. The bill also provides security to the film industry in relation to making creative and thought-provoking films that portray the lives of young people in our communities. I wish to acknowledge the support of all parties in this chamber and in the other place in the passage of this bill. I commend it to the house.

Hon. ANDREA COOTE (Monash) -- We should remember the delineation between classification and censorship when we are talking on this bill. It is salutary to look at the Oxford dictionary to see the difference between censorship and classification. It says censorship is 'the power to suppress or expurgate books, films, news, et cetera on the grounds of obscenity and the threat to security'. It says classification is 'to arrange in classes'. The purpose of this bill is not censorship. We have seen that from the contributions that have been made today, and those of us who have read the bill and understand it can see there is a lot of merit in it. Indeed it is important to address the current media; to address not just books, films and news but to have a look at what is the current scenario with the Internet, computer games and a whole range of multimedia that was not there in the past.

It is quite comical to remember some of the censorship issues of the past. It brings to mind Peter Rabbit.

We do not think of Peter Rabbit as being particularly bad, but he came under criticism for having all those bunnies running after each other, which was seen as having homosexual overtones and extremely concerning! Then we had Noddy and Big Ears, whose situation was seen as similar. Noddy and Big Ears were very bad examples to small children because once again that was

Page 428

a friendship that was not to be condoned. Not to be forgotten is Lady Chatterley's Lover, and of course the minute that was censored probably most of the people in this chamber raced off to read the explicit chapters. How harmless they seem today. I can remember being home from school once and turning on the television to watch the Loretta Young Show, which was rated AO. The Loretta Young Show had a serious amount of sex in it. Sex was absolutely out of the question; it was certainly not to be talked about at all, which is why it had an AO rating. It was very quickly switched off, and I was sent back to school the next day. However, it is very important for us to see how those things seemed at that time to be important. Today we are dealing with something quite different -- with very serious allegations, videos and Internet games et cetera.
I put on the record some of the things we are dealing with. In November 2002 the Age listed a number of video nasties. One of them was BMX XXX, in which players could choose to adopt the persona of a nude female rider. It was banned in 2002.

Then we have Grand Theft Auto III, which was banned in 2001. The first version of this game featured a scene in which the player could have sex with a prostitute, then bash and rob her. The game also involves breaking into cars and mowing down pedestrians. Then there is Postal Game, which was banned in 1997, in which players adopted the character of a crazed postal worker who kills those around him. The very first video game that was banned was Phantasmagoria in 1995, which featured a violent decapitation and other short but graphic scenes of violence. I think it makes Peter Rabbit look absolutely harmless! However, this is nothing to be humorous about, because it is actually very serious.

New Scientist deals with a number of issues regarding the correlation between watching violent video games and aggressive behaviour. I quote from an article by Hazel Muir in New Scientist of 23 October 2004:

In Manhunt, a first-person 3-D game, for instance, the gamer plays a convict retrieved from death row who shoots, beats to death or suffocates all acquaintances. The more grisly the execution, the greater the accolades earned. And in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, the gamer plays the part of an ex-con trying to recover cash lost in a botched drugs deal. The player mugs people, intimidates jurors and kills a prostitute.

And the violence is becoming more vivid as increases in computing power make the games look even more realistic.
We all recall the dreadful incidences of mass shoot-outs. For example, this New Scientist article talks about the April 2002 incident in Germany, when a 19-year-old ran amok with a pistol at a school. His 20-minute shooting frenzy left 17 people dead, including himself.

It also mentions how in April 1999 two teenagers rampaged through Columbine High School in Colorado with bombs, guns and knives, slaughtering 13 people before committing suicide.

This seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence, and there is increasingly more scientific evidence, to show the correlation between these violent video games and aggressive behaviour. It is therefore important to have a model and a framework whereby the rest of the community can understand what it is dealing with. The New Scientist article says:

Many studies have shown that people who play violent games regularly are more likely to show high levels of aggression. For instance, in 2000, Craig Anderson of Iowa State University in Ames and his colleague Karen Dill found that people who play violent games were more likely to admit to aggressive behaviour, including assaults or robberies.

An increasing amount of scientific evidence is coming through, and it is important for us as a community to understand what is involved with these games and what the opportunities are for our young people. The Internet is extremely difficult to contain, and video games show violence that most of us in here would be most unfamiliar with.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) Act 1995. It incorporates the commonwealth amendments which created uniform classifications for films and computer games. It is important for the rest of us to understand what the classifications mean. My colleague the Honourable Chris Strong spoke at length about the various classifications and what they mean. We need to have a guide, we need to understand, we need to have somebody who is looking at the total package to understand what it is we are facing. I commend this bill for doing exactly that.

This bill also adopts International Labour Organisation Convention 182 amending definitions of 'objectionable film', 'objectionable publication' and 'objectionable material', making it illegal to describe or depict a person who is, or looks like, they are under 18 from engaging in an indecent sexual manner or context. It is important to have that very clearly summarised so that we understand what it is we are doing.

As I said, this bill refers to incorporating the commonwealth amendments. It is important to look at the explanatory memorandum from the bill that went through the House of Representatives in 2004, entitled Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No 2) 2004. The summary of amendments is fairly lengthy, but I will read it because it is important to understand that this bill deals with

Page 429

those amendments. The summary of amendments on page 2 is:

The bill --
the federal bill --

will have the following effects:

validate board decisions made, both before and after the commencement of the amendments, on the basis of deficient or defective applications for classification by commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement agencies ...

validate review board decisions made, both before and after the commencement of the amendments, on the basis of deficient or defective applications for review of a board decision, where the relevant board decision resulted from an application by a commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement agency ...

validate any later decisions or actions taken by the board, the review board or the director under the classification act on the basis of the original board decision, or, as the case may be, review board decision ...
If we look at the federal bill we can see how thoroughly the issue was researched. The community can feel confident that the federal legislation is reflected in the bill we are dealing with today, and that the new scheme has been adequately examined and been given some guidelines.

The bill is an indication that Victoria is cooperating with the federal government and the other states and territories in dealing with what has become a very difficult, and in some instances a very dangerous, sort of industry and area.

We have some areas of concern, including the inability of a court to seize property which does not form part of the offence. The government should be regulating the sale of X 18+ material instead of sending the industry further underground, providing for the situation where there is an increased likelihood of exploitation without checks and balances.

The Liberal Party is not opposing this bill, and I believe there are some facets of it that are commendable. I believe the community will be better off having a clear definition of what these classifications are.

Mr PULLEN (Higinbotham) -- It is a pleasure to follow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who made a very good contribution on this bill, which is supported by all parties. My contribution will not be long, but the issue is important.

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) (Amendment) Bill aims to enhance the national classification scheme by creating a more easily understood classification scheme for films and computer games, to improve the effectiveness of enforcement action under Victoria's classification legislation, and to ensure that Victoria's classification legislation is consistent with the International Labour Organisation Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour.

The bill is complementary legislation to that at the federal level, and it has been agreed to by state and territory censorship ministers to create a common set of classifications of film and video games throughout Australia.

The type of material that is permitted within each classification is assessed by the Classification Review Board using the criteria set out in the national classification code and the relevant guidelines.

The agreed legislative amendments will modify the names of classification types to establish consistency between films and computer games. Currently films and computer games offer different names for the classification types.

While I will not go through what the current types are, this basically brings it down to new films and computer games having a G, which is a general classification; PG, which is for parental guidance; M for mature; and M (15+) for mature accompanied people. Then the R 18+ and X 18+ are restricted film classifications. One other classification, RC, stands for 'refused classification'.

The introduction of uniform classification types for films and computer games is to enhance community awareness of the computer games classification scheme by the use of well-known and well-understood film classification types. I was surprised to see -- and I learnt this only when I studied this particular bill -- that only 43 per cent of the population were aware that video games were classified. The censorship ministers agreed that the legislation to introduce the new classifications would commence in Australia on 26 May 2005, which is why we have to enact this bill now.

The bill contains amendments to improve the operation of the federal Classification Act as it is currently hindering the successful prosecution of classification offences in Victoria. It also contains an amendment to clarify that a separate evidentiary certificate is not required for each duplicate copy of a film publication or computer game, the cost of those certificates having been quite expensive in the past.

After 100 of these free certificates have been used up, the cost of each additional certificate is $110 to $200, depending on the nature of the certificate. Therefore this amendment is

Page 430

intended to provide certainty to ensure that Victoria Police is not hamstrung by the expense of obtaining separate evidentiary certificates for duplicate copies of films, publications and computer games.
To make the federal Classification Act more practically enforceable the bill provides an additional means to trigger forfeiture. This new trigger has the effect of reducing the number of evidentiary certificates Victoria Police needs to obtain, thereby reducing the cost of these prosecutions. Therefore the bill contains amendments to allow Victoria Police to seek full forfeiture where there is an offence or offences involving 10 or more items.

As Ms Mikakos covered very well -- so I will not go through a lot of it -- the final amendments address child exploitation in light of the International Labour Organisation Convention 182, which calls for the elimination of the worst kinds of child labour, including the use, procuring or offering of a child under 18 for prostitution, production of pornography or pornographic performances.

I believe honourable members would have received copies of a letter from Fiona Patten of BodyPolitics. It is a very good letter. I must make it clear that whilst this bill does not cover anything in relation to the sale of X-rated videos in Victoria, it is important for me to cover a few things as far as this is concerned. I have no doubt that most members of Parliament have met with Fiona Patten, and those who have not would certainly have received copies of a letter she sent out to people in relation to X-rated videos.

I accepted an offer by Ms Patten to have a tour of Sexpo when it took place here in Victoria, and I think it was very important for me to do that so they could put to me their particular point of view on X-rated videos. I always listen to all sides of all stories, which is why I went along to this particular exhibition. As people would know, I had no opinion on the stem cell research bill before I had listened to both sides of the argument on stem cell research. I eventually voted against the stem cell research bill because I could not be convinced that it was the right way to go. That is why I go along to anything -- I may draw the line on going along to a Liberal Party fundraiser, but I would certainly go along to most things!

An honourable member -- For research!

Mr PULLEN -- For research, yes! The letter I received, dated 14 March 2005, makes a number of important points. It states:

Over 3 million adult films were sold last year in Victoria with a turnover of more than $60 million.

Eighty-five per cent of adult material sold in Victoria is unclassified and/or pirated. Many of these pirated discs are now produced by criminal organisations.

Piracy of adult films helps fund crime gangs locally and internationally. One kilogram of pirated DVDs is now worth more than 1 kilogram of marijuana (UN Report, 2004).

Organised crime fears are very real. Police report that 30 per cent of pirated material found is adult. This material is providing the backbone for these criminal operations.

Over 1 million (30 per cent) of Victorians have stated that they watch X-rated films. (Sex in Australia survey -- La Trobe University, 2002).

Over 30 per cent of all adult films in Victoria are sold from non-adult venues such as convenience stores, newsagents, petrol stations and family video outlets where minors have access as employees and customers.
Because of the prosecution changes that will come into place, this bill will go a long way towards eliminating some of these problems. However, negotiation should continue with adult industry lobby groups to develop a system that would be more acceptable to all concerned -- adults who wish to view whatever film they choose and our young people, who would be further protected. I support the bill.

Hon. B. N. ATKINSON (Koonung) -- This is an important piece of legislation. I join my colleagues in supporting this bill and not opposing it. It is a bill that takes us forward in dealing with the problem of classifying materials that are likely to cause some concern because of either violent or sexual aspects of their content. One of the concerns the opposition has, even though it is not opposing the bill, is the fact that the government has again come in with last-minute amendments. It has been working on this bill for quite a number of months, but it has still failed to bring into this house a bill that is comprehensive and that addresses all the issues. The bill has needed further amendment. That is a matter for concern.

I commend Mr Pullen for the comments he made towards the end of his speech when he indicated that there ought to be an ongoing dialogue on some matters related to censorship, the classification system we have and the opportunity to develop a system that addresses some of the issues related to adult materials and materials that we understand at this stage to be essentially X and R-rated.

I am particularly interested in this debate. A number of members are aware that this is an area that I have been

Page 431

particularly concerned about. I am worried about the inconsistency of legislation around Australia, about our ability to address these issues in a way that will enable us to achieve some sort of consistency in policy framework throughout Australia, about our ability to have legislation which is contemporary and which recognises the reality of the transmission of information and material, and the technology that is associated with their distribution, and about our ability as a society to address some of the issues, particularly in respect of the availability of the material to young people.
The legislation this bill addresses has not really been visited for more than 20 years. When we consider the impact of the Internet and other technologies such as DVD-copying technology and even to some extent video-copying technology over that period we start to realise that a piecemeal approach to legislation in this area is simply not an adequate response by government.

Whilst this legislation goes some way to addressing some of the issues associated with the availability of this material in the community -- the accessibility of this material in this community to young people in particular -- it goes nowhere near far enough. The government has lost an opportunity in this legislative process to address a much broader range of issues in regard to X-rated and R-rated materials, both of which have connections to sex and violence issues, by really addressing amendments or responding on what ought to be its legislative position going forward.

A number of members in this house and in the other house have suggested that we are part of a national classification system and that this legislation tries to fit in with that. That is absolute nonsense. That is an absolute furphy.

The reality is that the national classification system being spoken of was put in place some years ago when the state, territory and federal governments signed on to a classification system which introduced a new classification of non-violent erotica. The fact is that the only government which has taken it up has been the federal government, and that is why we have an industry turning out adult material from Canberra. None of the states has really addressed that issue despite the fact that the states signed an agreement with the federal government. To talk of being connected with a national system is therefore nonsense. The fact is that because of the approach the states have taken, the area of adult-related material is full of anomalies.

I have a situation I have spoken about in a number of areas of a milk bar very close to my electorate office selling not just X-rated material but unclassified material. This material is visible from the street.

It cannot be legally sold in an adult shop which has gone through the process of obtaining a planning permit to establish in a suburb or a particular location where it has to submit to regulations regarding the display of material it offers for sale, yet somebody else is selling such material.

The resources the government provides for the enforcement of the proposed law before the house tonight and laws that are already in place are clearly inadequate -- and there has been no discussion of that enforcement. Many members of this house and of the other place are quite happy to titter and giggle about the whole issue of X-rated and unclassified material being available in the community. They are quite happy to ignore the impact of the Internet and the sort of material that can be downloaded from the Internet. They are quite happy to put up with an anomaly where it is not illegal in Victoria to own or to buy adult-related material with an X classification but it is illegal to sell it.

Those sorts of inconsistencies are not immediately comprehensible to the community.

It was amusing when the Premier on radio 3AW was asked by a commentator whether he had ever watched an X-rated video, because most of us on this side know that it is pretty hard to get a direct answer out of the Premier at any time. But the Premier vacillated over his answer on this particular issue. Later an adviser explained away his position on X-rated videos on this occasion by saying, 'Look, the Premier did not really understand the difference between an X-rated and an R-rated video'. As many members in this house would be aware, that was also reported in the Australian Financial Review.

I am not surprised at the Premier's response, and that is the very issue we as politicians ought to address in this community.

If the Premier does not understand the difference between X-rated and R-rated material, or does not understand that unclassified material is out there in the community, all too accessible to young people, then we have a real problem. How do we expect the community to understand what these materials are, whether or not they are legal, and what exactly they mean in terms of the laws that apply and the enforcement we can expect from our police force? How do we make sure that we have a censorship regime that is appropriate to the needs and expectations of the community and makes sure that young people are not gaining access to material that is totally inappropriate to their maturity?

What Mr Pullen said is absolutely right; this legislation is okay as far as it goes. He certainly went a lot further in terms of commending this legislation to the house, but the fact is that we ought to be going a lot further.

Page 432

We ought not be trying to giggle about these sorts of issues. As members of Parliament we ought to be a lot more adult in our approach to these issues. We ought to be taking them on and establishing a legislative regime that eliminates the anomalies and stops the criminal element Mr Pullen spoke about in quoting material provided by the industry lobby group, the Eros Association. We certainly ought to address the changing technologies in our community which make a whole range of materials, including information that you might well expect ought to stay in the adult domain, available or accessible to a greater cross-section of the community.
We ought to be looking to make sure that the enforcement we arrive at is capable of providing some integrity to the process of the laws we establish in this house. We ought to make sure that there are no inconsistencies from state to state.

We ought to make sure that under the federal covenant we have signed we are at least able to rationalise our position in a mature and real way, and not simply sign it at one level but fail to implement any change in our laws that would give effect to it if we do not believe it. We ought to have a mature debate on these issues.

I have written to every one of the major churches in this state, and to each church in my electorate seeking their views on these issues, in particular those regarding classification of X and R-rated materials. I have asked for their views on some of the information in this material that is not just sexually explicit but indeed relates to violence. I have to say that in many ways I am far more concerned about some of the violent aspects of material presented to young people than I am about some of the sexually explicit stuff, notwithstanding that I believe in most cases many young people do not have the emotional capability and maturity to digest what is being offered to them.

As I said, things that are accessible through the Internet and increasingly through a range of distribution networks are totally unregulated in this state. You only have to consider places like that milk bar near my office and the Caribbean market or other markets around the state. You only have to consider the mobile vans that go around selling lunches, but also make available X-rated videos to workers in factories and so forth.

We need to go a lot further than this legislation. Yes, this legislation is a step in the right direction, but it is unfortunate that it has again been a hurried and reactive response to a problem and that it tries to provide bandaid solutions in areas of legislation to try to ensure that the police are able to obtain convictions where at the moment they are uncertain of their opportunity to prosecute what they believe are offences against the existing laws.

We need to go a lot further in the context of a mature debate on these issues, a debate that recognises all the interests of the community, including those church organisations that I have approached and gained some very constructive input from, particularly on the subject of movie or video classifications and adult-related material.

I hope that this is only the first step. I certainly hope that members of this Parliament recognise that we need to be a lot better in our leadership of the community on issues like this and not simply leave them on the shelf so that we pretend we are addressing significant issues when in reality we are not at all addressing some of the very real concerns that the community has about these sorts of materials and -- --

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. B. W. Bishop) -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired.

Hon. J. G. HILTON (Western Port) -- In my contribution tonight on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (Enforcement) (Amendment) Bill, I will be brief. The opposition and The Nationals have indicated their support; consequently I do not see any real reason to take up too much time in the house.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that Victoria is in line with the national classification scheme. The fact that it does not do any more than its purpose is not a ground for criticism of the bill, as Mr Atkinson has tried to make out. Obviously it is necessary and important that we have a national classification scheme so that consumers of the products which are the subject of the bill can have an understanding of what they are purchasing and/or renting.

The genesis of the bill was the publication in 2003 of the new classification guidelines for films and computer games.

It was acknowledged that there was a requirement for each state to implement its own legislation to support those new guidelines, and that is what this bill will do. Obviously one clearly worthwhile consequence of the bill is that now computer games will have the same classification as films -- for example, PG, MA and R, which I think are universally recognised, as two of those classifications indicate.

I must acknowledge to the house that I have never played a computer game and our children, who are young adults, are now way past the time when we could have control over their behaviour or what they do.

Page 433

However, I am sure that parents of younger children will find consistency useful and informative.
Before I sit down, I want to respond to a couple of comments made by other speakers in this debate. I was impressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's contribution. However, she did seem to be implying that people who play violent video games are more likely to indulge in violent behaviour. There is no evidence that I am aware of that there is a causal relationship between playing violent computer games and indulging in violent behaviour. It could be merely an association that people who are likely to play violent computer games are more likely than the general community to indulge in violent behaviour. But there is absolutely no evidence to imply, nor should it be stated, that playing computer games by itself necessarily increases the tendency to violent behaviour.

I would also like to respond to a couple of the comments made by Mr Pullen. I have also been approached by Fiona Patten and find her arguments persuasive. The fact that it is legal to purchase an X-rated video, that it is legal to own an X-rated video, but it is not legal to sell an X-rated video seems to me somewhat bizarre. I am sure that at some stage that contradiction as I see it will be addressed.

Finally, in relation to Mr Atkinson's contribution, I always enjoy listening to Mr Atkinson, especially when he is very passionate about the issues which he has raised, which is obviously the case with this bill. Of course raising these issues is not without personal damage. He has raised these issues before and has been rewarded with the headline in the Sunday Herald Sun of 6 March, 'Legalised porn: Lib'. I think he will be talking about having a sensible debate.

We need to have a sensible debate not only within Parliament but within the media as well, particularly the way the media portrays people who are making what they believe is a sensible considered contribution to a major issue. It is trivialisation at the extreme, and indeed may be somewhat off-putting to people wishing to make these statements in public knowing that is the way they can be portrayed.

I have a fair amount of sympathy with the views expressed by Mr Atkinson, but that sympathy does not extend to criticism of this bill. As I said, this bill was drafted for a particular purpose to ensure that Victorian legislation is in place to implement the national classification scheme. It was not intended to do any more or any less than that, and to criticise it for not going further I believe is mischievous.

This is good legislation that has been accepted by all parties, and I certainly commend it to the house. I am not saying -- and this is my personal point of view -- that this legislation addresses all the issues which should be addressed in this debate about the availability of X-rated videos, et cetera, but that was not its intention. Therefore, for the reasons which I have indicated, there being no opposition from The Nationals and the opposition to this bill, I am more than happy to commend it to the house.

Ms HADDEN (Ballarat) -- I am going to be a bit of a fly in the ointment tonight, and do so for two reasons. I am not going to vote for this bill. I will neither support it nor will I vote for it. I am registering now to every member in this house that I intend to have my dissent vote registered. I do so for two reasons. It is all very well to pander to the powerful lobby groups that get into the minister's ear and forget about the children. What about the vulnerable young people in the state and what about the vulnerable children?

Where is their voice? Nowhere.

If this state had an independent commissioner for children, I might be satisfied that this bill had at least crossed the commissioner's desk, but it has not. This state has not followed in Tasmania's footsteps, and until it does I will make sure that the Attorney-General, the Minister for Children and the Minister for Community Services in the other place get their act together in relation to the protection of children in this state and not just put all this spin in this material because I am absolutely sick of it.

No-one in my electorate even knows the bill is before the house. I have not had an opportunity to be properly briefed in relation to this bill.

I have done some quick research tonight over the last few hours and I am not impressed with it because again it is looking after the film-makers' interests, raising age of consent of a victim from 16 years to 18 years to pander to their profit-making ideals. Again, where is the voice of the children? I have not heard anyone speak on behalf of children or on behalf of young people who are exploited every day. Members express concern about Mr Baldy who is about to be released, probably into my electorate because Melbourne does not want him. We cannot put him anywhere in Melbourne because he would probably be too close to the house of some minister or member. Mr Baldy will probably be released into my electorate or into the Bendigo electorate because that is where the services are.

My electorate is very sensitive about this issue. As I said, members are concerned about Mr Baldy and about victims being scarred for life, and then they have the

Page 434

gall to come into the house and say, 'This is fine. We will just tinker around the edges', or, as I think I heard a previous speaker say, 'This is a focus on classification for film-makers'. Where is the protection for the children? Where is the voice for children in this state? I do not hear it and I am suitably unimpressed.
Every member in this house ought to do some research on establishing an independent commissioner for children. They ought to look at the Tasmanian model. My very best friend, Mrs Patmalar Ambikapathy, was the first Commissioner for Children in Tasmania. She was in that position for four years. Her hair would curl if she saw this bill because a bill that looks like being introduced into the house in Tasmania has to cross the commissioner's desk first. There is no protection in this bill for children. It raises the victim's age of consent from 16 to 18. It is totally inappropriate.

When I read the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) Alert Digest No. 3 of 2005 I saw some grand statements, one of which refers to the International Labour Organisation and reads:

The ... government strongly supports ratification of this convention. Promoting the physical, sexual, emotional and psychological safety of all young people is a priority for this government.
Again I ask: who is speaking for the children and young people in this state? I have not heard anyone do so tonight, and I have not read it anywhere. The issue has to be addressed pretty quickly by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Children, who is also the Minister for Community Services in the other place.

The second reason I am not supporting this bill is because it contains no social justice impact statement.

It contains no impact statement in relation to family and social issues that affect all Victorians -- not just rural and regional Victorians, but all Victorians. I have not been offered any timely or professional briefing on this crucial bill that will have a huge impact on young people and children. As I said, it actually raises the age of consent.

As an Independent member of Parliament it is my role to scrutinise bills that come into this house. I am not satisfied that this bill will in any way protect young people or children in this state. Children in the 16-to-18 age group are the most vulnerable in this state. Look at the child paedophiles, the child sex offenders, and then look at the age group and at how they groom them from a young age up to 16 and 18. I do know what I am talking about. Some members in this house ought to get out and talk to some of the defence lawyers, members of the bar council, and public prosecutors and hear about the impact of the exploitation of young people and children. They are vulnerable.

We are parliamentarians and it is our job to protect them. I do not see too much protection in this house tonight.

The other aspect of the bill I want to focus on is the fact that the Labor government spouted and spruiked about integrity in public life, about its plan to restore the credibility, integrity and effectiveness of Parliament and win back public respect for the political process. I am an Independent and no-one has told me that this bill is a good thing for young people and children in this state. My view is that this bill will not in any way create stronger or safer communities. In fact it might do exactly the opposite.

As I said, I am not supporting the bill for those two reasons. This is a house of review. We are not a rubber stamp; we do not just trot out the set lines that are given to us by the media unit or the ministers' advisers. We should be thinking about what we are doing in this place.

Some of us are collecting a pretty handsome salary and we have to do better than we have to date. I can tell the house I am not impressed.

I am not going to vote for this bill for those two reasons. I will not support it. I think we had better have a long, hard look at ourselves and exactly what we really mean by looking after young people in this state, by protecting our vulnerable children and young people. I do not see this bill doing anything like that. In my view it looks after a powerful lobby group, the film-makers. The focus is on that. There is no balance. Where is the voice speaking for the children and young people? It is not there.

The PRESIDENT -- Order! The question is:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no.

Honourable members -- Aye.

Ms Hadden -- No.

The PRESIDENT -- Order! I think the ayes have it.

Ms Hadden -- The noes have it.

The PRESIDENT -- Order! Is a division called for?

Ms Hadden -- Yes.

The PRESIDENT -- Order! Ring the bells.

Page 435

Bells rung.
Members having assembled in chamber:

The PRESIDENT -- Order! Ayes to the right, noes to the left. It appears there is only one member for the noes. Under standing order 11.07 the member has the opportunity of expressing a wish to have her dissent recorded in the minutes, or under standing order 11.08 she can have a division recorded. Is the member prepared to have the dissent recorded in the minutes or does she want a full division?

Ms HADDEN (Ballarat) -- I want a division.

The PRESIDENT -- Order! I appoint as tellers for the ayes the Honourable Bill Forwood and Mr Smith, and for the noes, Ms Hadden and the Deputy Clerk.

House divided on question:

Ayes, 38
Argondizzo, Ms Lenders, Mr
Atkinson, Mr Lovell, Ms
Baxter, Mr McQuilten, Mr
Bishop, Mr Madden, Mr
Bowden, Mr Mikakos, Ms
Brideson, Mr Mitchell, Mr
Broad, Ms Nguyen, Mr
Buckingham, Ms Pullen, Mr
Carbines, Ms Rich-Phillips, Mr
Coote, Mrs Romanes, Ms
Darveniza, Ms Scheffer, Mr
Davis, Mr D. McL. Smith, Mr (Teller)
Drum, Mr Somyurek, Mr
Eren, Mr Stoney, Mr
Forwood, Mr (Teller) Strong, Mr
Hall, Mr Theophanous, Mr
Hilton, Mr Thomson, Ms
Jennings, Mr Viney, Mr
Koch, Mr Vogels, M

Noes, 1
Hadden, Ms (Teller)

Question agreed to.

Read second time.

Remaining stages
Passed remaining stages.

"In this instance, the Review Board considered the out of time application as a preliminary matter, and determined to exercise its discretion and proceed with the application."

In 2004 the OFLC saw fit to award R18+ ratings to films such as MANIAC, LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, and ICHI THE KILLER. All are much more extreme than anything you can find in THE GORE GORE GIRLS. 

This is a film that even the notorious British censors passed uncut in February 2002. Compare this with the treatment they gave MANIAC (May'02 cut by 58sec), LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (July'02 cut by 31sec), and ICHI THE KILLER (Nov'02 cut by 3min 15sec). The OFLC passed all of these uncut!

ICHI THE KILLER even contains some nipple-slicing violence far more brutal than the comparable scene in THE GORE GORE GIRLS.

So, if on Monday it doesn't get its rating dropped to R18+, then it proves that nothing has changed. Our rating system is really just as arbitrary as ever. 

******

Gallery Entertainment have just had a triple-bill VHS of PHOTO CLUB, AFRICA RISING, and PHOTOPLAY Refused Classification.

******

Missing from the last update was the news that the revised version of THE PUNISHER had just been released. If anyone has played the Australian release and can confirm any edits then please let me know.

******

It only took them nearly three months, but the Review Board have finally released the full report into their reason for dropping the 9 SONGS rating from X18+ to R18+. The film is set to open on May 12th.

******

Rated D for Dilemma. SMH 09.04.05 

An interesting article that explains the rating system to parents. It includes a number of quotes from Des Clark.

What is the difference between M and MA in practical terms? "The type of detail" Clark says. "If you look at Lord of the Rings, Spiderman and other films classified M, they have battles, they have fights, but there isn't any blood; there are often obscured scenes where you don't see any detail. Whereas if you look at an MA film like Alexander, you have swords going through bodies, you have blood splattered on the camera lens. There is a lot more details in the violence or the sex scenes"

"People are less tolerant of violence; they are a little bit more relaxed about sex, but there are still concerns about the use of strong language."

This leads to the question of how the Eminem film 8 Mile achieved an M rating when it contains - to quote "approximately 200 uses of fuck and motherfucker language".

"It was in the argot they were talking in their conversation" Clark says, adding that it wasn't generally used in an aggressive or threatening way. "However, a film with largely PG content needs [to] have only one use of fuck and it is into M"

******

Twentieth Century Fox this week lost their appeal to have the M rating awarded to GUESS WHO lowered to PG.

5 April 2005

NEWS RELEASE

Review announced for the film Guess Who?

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the film Guess Who? from Twentieth Century Fox.

Guess Who? was classified M by the Classification Board on 4 April 2005.

The Classification Review Board will meet on Wednesday 6 April 2005 to consider the application.

The Classification Review Board’s decision and reasons for its decision will appear on the

OFLC website once the review has 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.

6 April 2005

MEDIA RELEASE

Guess Who? classified M upon review

A three-member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision, that the film, Guess Who?, directed by Kevin Rodney Sullivan and starring Ashton Kutcher, is classified M with the consumer advice, “Sexual References”.

M is an advisory classification. Films classified M are not recommended for persons under 15 years of age. There are no legal restrictions on access.

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, the film warrants an M, rather than a PG classification, because the sexual references in the film have a cumulative impact higher than mild.

“While the impact of the sexual references was the principal classifiable element on which the Review Board made its decision, it noted the extent of the coarse language throughout the film also exceeded the PG standard of mild. However, the impact of both elements was no higher than moderate”, Classification Review Board Deputy Convener, The Hon Trevor Griffin, said.

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Twentieth Century Fox, to review the M classification of Guess Who? made by the Classification Board on 4 April 2005.

In reviewing the classification, the Classification Review Board worked within the framework of the National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games.

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. This Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board.