******

So far in December Adultshop.com have not had much luck with the OFLC. Their DVD subsidiary Calvista have just had two more titles banned.  DVD's of LAID UP and LET ME BREATHE were both hit with RC ratings by the Classification Board.

News concerning two previously banned titles. Metro Interactive have censored the DVD's of I WAS TIGHT YESTERDAY 05 and PURE FILTH 03. Both revised versions have just been awarded X18+ (Explicit Sex) ratings.

******

The Australian Communications and Media Authority are calling for public submissions for a review of reality TV programming. The closing date is February 1st 2007.

******

Currently before Parliament is the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2006. 

It intends to amend the:

Broadcasting Services Act 1992, Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 and Freedom of Information Act 1982 to facilitate the integration of the Office of Film and Literature Classification into the Attorney-General’s Department; and Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 in relation to: the functions of the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board; the operation of the National Classification Scheme; repeal expired or redundant provisions; and transfer responsibility for delegated legislation from the Director of the Classification Board to the Attorney-General.

***

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2006
Stage First Reading 
Private No
Name Attorney-General portfolio 
Bill number 06195
Date 07 December, 2006 
Database Bills
Source House

Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2006 is available as a PDF file

2004-2005-2006

The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Presented and read a first time

***

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT BILL 2006: Second Reading

Date 07 December, 2006 
Database House Hansard

Speaker Ruddock, Philip, MP (Berowra, Attorney-General, LP, Government) 
Page 9
Proof Yes 
Source House
Stage Second Reading 
Type Speech
Context BILLS 
Main Committee No

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT BILL 2006 
Second Reading 

Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Attorney-General) (9.48 a.m.)—I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2006 amends the classification act to implement government policy on the accountability framework for statutory agencies and to ensure the national classification scheme’s ongoing smooth operation in a changing technological environment.

The bill facilitates the integration of the Office of Film and Literature Classification into the Attorney-General’s Department.

Classification Board and Classification Review Board functions remain unchanged. But the Director of the Classification Board will cease to have agency management powers and financial responsibilities. The Attorney-General’s Department will provide staff to support each of the boards and assume responsibility for their financial administration.

These changes reinforce the independent functions of the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board. The bill confines the existing powers of the director to matters associated with the board and gives separate statutory powers to the convenor for matters associated with the review board.

The bill also transfers from the Director of the Classification Board to the Attorney-General, as the minister administering the act, responsibility for delegated legislation, consistent with ministerial responsibility.

This includes the power to determine markings to be displayed about classified material—to be exercised in consultation with state and territory censorship ministers. The minister, rather than the director, will also determine fee waiver principles to be applied by the director and the convenor when waiving fees payable under the act for applications.

The bill also makes amendments to improve the operation of the national classification scheme—responding to industry concern about marketing imperatives and the law’s application in light of changing technology. They streamline the classification process and reduce the regulatory burden on industry. These amendments have been the subject of consultation including with state and territory censorship ministers.

Descriptions or translations such as sub-titling, captioning, dubbing or audio descriptions, and navigation functions such as interactive menus, are increasingly added to already classified films. Currently, these constitute ‘modifications’, necessitating the film’s reclassification.

However, descriptions or translations do not provide new content. They provide access to already classified material for the ageing population, and for people with language barriers, or visual or hearing impairments. Likewise, menu functions merely facilitate navigation around new media such as DVDs. They include ‘play’ or ‘fast forward’ functions, or menu options to navigate between selections.

Following amendment, such descriptions or translations and navigation functions will no longer be considered modifications requiring reclassification.

This bill also facilitates the addition of related but new material to already classified feature movies when they are re-released on disc for sale or hire. These include additional scenes, interviews with the director, and even featurettes taking their meaning from the content of the film.

Currently, these additions mean that the disc constitutes a new ‘film’ as defined, and must be classified, even though the feature movie on the disc has already been classified. Additional content rarely results in a classification different from that of the feature film on the disc.

The bill provides for an additional content assessment scheme whereby a person appropriately trained and authorised by the director may recommend to the Classification Board the classification and consumer advice for additional content released with already classified or exempt films. The Classification Board will retain responsibility for classifying the film. But its consideration will be assisted by the assessment of an authorised assessor.

The scheme contains safeguards to ensure the integrity of the system. These include requiring the board to revoke classifications in specified circumstances which demonstrate that the assessment on which the classification was based was highly unreliable and the board would otherwise have made a different classification decision.

In addition, the director has a power to revoke, in specified circumstances, an additional content assessor’s status or, in serious cases, bar them from being an assessor for up to three years, or bar an applicant from using the additional content assessment scheme for up to three years. These powers are permissive, and only exercisable under certain conditions. They are designed to deter users from abusing the system or providing lax or inadequate assessments of additional content. Decisions by the director to revoke an assessor’s status or bar an assessor or applicant from using the scheme may be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The additional content assessment scheme was developed following public consultation on a discussion paper released earlier this year. The amendments are modelled on the existing authorised computer games assessor scheme which has been operating successfully for a number of years.

The bill contains several other minor amendments which respond to changing technology and marketing initiatives and miscellaneous technical amendments.

The amendments contained in this bill will ensure the national classification scheme continues to serve both industry and the public well—responding to the needs of the rapidly evolving world of entertainment media but guaranteeing the reliability of classification information for consumers.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Ms Roxon) adjourned.

***

A comment regarding the above amendments.

"The minister, rather than the director, will also determine fee waiver principles to be applied by the director and the convenor when waiving fees payable under the act for applications."

In the past, Des Clark, the Director of the OFLC, has allowed fee waivers to groups such as the Australian Family Association. Much to their displeasure, he had also refused them. With the Attorney-General calling the shots, these groups are going to have a much easier time challenging ratings.

******

The above is just another example of how minority groups such as the Australian Family Association are getting their voice heard. If you are one of the silent majority then I suggest you go out and purchase yourself a copy of Richard Dawkin's new book THE GOD DELUSION. It's an essential read for anyone concerned about the increasing religious influence in society. 

******

Twentieth Century Fox have lost their appeal to have the December 4th M rating of ERAGON dropped to PG. Instead the consumer advice was changed from 'Moderate Violence' to 'Moderate Fantasy Violence'.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
11 December 2006
MEDIA RELEASE 

Eragon classified M upon review 

A 4-member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision, that the film, Eragon is classified M with the consumer advice, “Moderate fantasy violence”. 

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, Eragon warrants an M classification because it contains frequent scenes of violence and menace of moderate impact. 

“The film includes depictions of a young woman writhing in pain and a graphic representation of an arrow piercing a man’s forehead in close-up,” said Classification Review Board Convenor, Maureen Shelley.

“Despite the fantasy genre mitigating the impact of individual scenes, the cumulative effect of the repeated violence is such that it requires a mature perspective.” 

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

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, 20th Century Fox Film Distributors, to review the M classification of Eragon made by the Classification Board on 4 December 2006. 

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.

******

Here are a couple of the more interesting recent complaints heard by the Advertising Standards Board. Lots more can be found at their website (adstandards.com.au) under complaints.

The following two are from advertisements that were either modified or discontinued.

Advertising Standards Board Case Report 

1. Complaint reference number 455/06 
2. Advertiser Sony Computer Entertainment Aust (Tekken – Dark Resurrection) 
3. Product Toys & Games 
4. Type of advertisement TV 
5. Nature of complaint Discrimination or vilification Other – section 2.1 
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 14 November 2006 
7. DETERMINATION Upheld – discontinued or modified

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 

This television advertisement for a computer game begins in the style of late-night “adult” commercials and opens with a female voiceover asking “Guys. Are you looking for a little one-on-one girl action fantasy?” As computer-generated images of three young women appear on screen the voice continues “Well Lili, Anna and Christie are waiting for you right now”. A short burst of game play is shown with martial arts action and noises, and a continuation of the female voiceover in an aggressive tone “Waiting to kick your **** ass, you ****. C’mon.” 

THE COMPLAINT 

Comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following: 

The girl looks under the age of consent…That she is a computer-generated image is, I believe, irrelevant to the issue that an image of a child is being sexualised. 

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 

Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following: 

Our intent was humour not offence. 

The premise of the ad is indeed taking the well-known “late-night” adult advertising and subverting it, so that rather than being passive women, the characters are shown as dominant and assertive over the type of man that might have fallen for the initial set-up. With the intended take-out being that the characters “punish” male viewers who “fall” for the advertising, by threatening to beat them up – NOT provide and sexual gratification. 

It is also our understanding that all of the characters within the game are intended to be adults. There was certainly no intention to sexualise a child within the advertising. 

THE DETERMINATION 

The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”). 

The Board viewed the advertisement several times and considered whether the advertisement contravened the provision of the Code dealing with sex, sexuality and nudity. 

In particular, the Board considered the first shot of the advertisement which depicted a computerised image of a young girl. The Board agreed that the girl - although clearly a computer-generated image – appeared to be well under the age of sexual consent. 

The Board then considered the image in the light of the voiceover which the Board considered to be highly sexual in nature. The Board agreed that the sexual nature of the voiceover strongly sexualised the image of a child. The Board did not accept that the computer-generated nature of the image was relevant to whether or not it depicted a sexualised child. The Board considered that the use of an image of a child in an overtly sexual context was a depiction that was not sensitive to the relevant audience, or any audience. 

The Board found that the advertisement contravened the section Code 2.3 of the code dealing with sexuality. 

The Board therefore upheld the complaint. 

ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE TO DETERMINATION 

The advertisement ceased broadcasting on September 20 2006 and we have no further plans to broadcast it again in either its current or modified form.

******

Advertising Standards Board Case Report 

1. Complaint reference number 371/06 
2. Advertiser Roadshow Film Distributors Pty Ltd “Lady in the Water” 
3. Product Entertainment 
4. Type of advertisement TV 
5. Nature of complaint Other - Causes alarm and distress to children 
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 10 October 2006 
7. DETERMINATION Upheld – discontinued or modified 

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 

There are three versions of this television advertisement which are set in the grounds of a hotel “The Cove” and feature eerie atmosphere and music. 

The first begins with sounds of something moving furtively through undergrowth as a young child whispers “There is a creature. It’s not in the closet. It’s not under the bed. It’s in the backyard” and a woman screams as she is carried to safety in the arms of a man. They enter a house and the door handle is seen rattling behind them as they frantically ascend a staircase. The shadow of a creature can be seen against the window. A man standing in the rain looks at a woman with pale face and eyes as the child’s voice sings “Who’s afraid of the big bad wolf?” 

A second version is shorter and fast-paced, having dialogue including “They came among us” … “ Something strange is going on around this building”…”Waiting for her return” and a man asking a woman “How many of you are there?”…”The nightmare that waits in your own backyard.” 

A third version mentions the other movies of M. Night Shyalaman and reminds us “His movies have explored the dark corners of our fears. Now he reveals the nightmare that waits in your own backyard.” A man is seen surfacing in a swimming pool, then checking the water with a torch, then inside his room, furtively opening the door and saying “Oh my god”. 

THE COMPLAINT 

Comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following:

 …disturbing imagery… 

…has supernatural overtones and is very scary. 

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 

Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following: 

The content of the television commercials is within the context of the product we are advertising… 

Roadshow Films has ensured that all advertisements for “Lady in the Water” campaign have been carefully scrutinised both internally and externally to ensure they are appropriate and suitable in light of all circumstances to the Australian viewing public. 

THE DETERMINATION 

The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”). 

The Board noted that the advertisement had been given a “J” classification which means that it is a PG style advertisement and must not be broadcast during PG timezones. The Board noted that, particularly during weekend sport and early evening television, the advertisement was likely to be seen by children. The Board also noted that the movie being advertised was a PG classified movie. 

The Board noted that the complaints related to distress to children caused by the advertisement. The Board viewed the advertisement and considered that the images, commentary and sound effects in the advertisement were likely to be frightening, particularly the condensed images of the apparent werewolf and of the woman’s ghostly face. 

The Board noted that although the film held a “PG” film censorship classification, the condensed nature of the scary images might have increased the impact of the advertisement beyond the intended film classification. 

The Board was of the view that the advertisement constituted a portrayal of the threat of violence and that this threat of violence was not appropriate during a timezone when children were likely to be watching television, and would not be minimised by parental supervision.

In the context of the advertisement being shown during these times, the Board formed the view that the advertisement breached clause 2.2 of the Code. 

The Board noted, however, that if the advertisement had been in a more restricted timezone and not shown during time slots where viewing by children was likely, they would not have upheld the complaint. 

In the circumstances, however, the Board found that the depiction did contravene the provisions of the Code relating to violence. 

The Board therefore upheld the complaint. 

ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE TO DETERMINATION 

I wish to confirm that we have discontinued use of all TVC advertisements for LADY IN THE WATER. All TVC’s came off air on the 14th September 2006 .

******

The Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, this week put the following questions on notice.

The Senate meets at 9 am

Notifications prefixed by an (*) appear for the first time.

*2903 Senator Stott Despoja: To ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General—

(1) (a) Can the Attorney-General explain why it was necessary to remove the classification policy support function of the department’s Canberra operation; and (b) was the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) advice of inferior quality or was it not in accord with the conservative views of the Government.

(2) Given that the Remuneration Tribunal Determination 2006/13 indicates that the total remuneration packages for the Director and Deputy Director of the OFLC have been reduced, respectively, from $245 000 to $191 370 and $206 490 to $164 510: (a) can the Attorney-General release the submission made to the Remuneration Tribunal; if not, can the review on which the submission might be based be released; (b) can the Attorney-General advise why the Remuneration Tribunal Determination makes the exception of continuing with the higher remuneration for the Director and Deputy Director, despite the downgrading of the remuneration levels; and (c) are the positions now different and simpler and as a result deserve a lower level of remuneration.

(3) Will the cost savings afforded by this new structure be passed on to industry in the form of lower classification fees.

******

Released this week is the 2005-06 Annual Report of the Classification and Review Boards. You can download it from www.oflc.gov.au.

Alternatively, a hard copy can be had by calling or e-mailing the OFLC.

Tel (02) 9289 7100
e-mail oflcswitch@oflc.gov.au.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP 
NEWS RELEASE 
28 November 2006 
218/2006 
CLASSIFICATION BOARD & CLASSIFICATION REVIEW BOARD 2005-06 ANNUAL REPORT TABLED 

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock tabled the 2005–06 annual report for the Classification Board and Classification Review Board in Parliament today. 

Mr Ruddock said he was pleased with the way the Classification Boards had continued to respond to strong and controversial themes in entertainment media. 

“They continue to receive large numbers of applications and continue to make challenging decisions about films, publications and computer games which reflect the diversity of opinion in the community,” Mr Ruddock said. 

The Classification Board finalised 9,730 applications during the reporting period and the Classification Review Board finalised 25 applications. 

The 2005–06 annual report marks the last report from the Director of the Classification Board, Mr Des Clark. 

“His leadership has seen the classification system respond to significant challenges while keeping pace with community standards and expectations. I thank Mr Clark and pay tribute to his stewardship,” Mr Ruddock said. 

Mr Clark’s term as Director will expire in April 2007 after serving the maximum statutory term of seven years. 

The annual report is available on the Office of Film and Literature Classification website at: www.oflc.gov.au. 

******

Following last weekends negative publicity, Red Ant Enterprises have dropped the game RULE OF ROSE from their schedules.

******

Confirmation that the MA15+ game Scarface: The World is Yours, has been slightly modified for the Australian market. Missing are an advertisement for the Scarface (film) DVD, and the prologue of the game that contains violent clips from the film.

******

Eros Magazine Vol.7 No5. is out now. Subscription information, and a selection of some of the articles can be found here.

The feature article is 'Noooooo...Sex! Christians Take on Taliban Tactics In Victoria', Frank Hodges's look at problems faced by the Club X store in Shepparton.

******

What will become of RULE OF ROSE now that the Sunday tabloids are on the case? The game has yet been rated by the Classification Board.

******

Calvista have taken the scissors to a couple of recently banned titles. Censored versions of PORN WARS 2 and DANGEROUS SEX have both now been passed X18+ (Explicit Sex)

******

THE SHADOWERS can now be viewed at the Art Gallery of NSW. This piece of video art had previously came in for some attention from the OFLC.

******

The recent copyright amendment discussions included these comments by representatives of the games industry. Both used the classic "What about the children?" defence.

The two speakers are:

Maurice Gonsalves, Partner, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Legal Representatives for Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia

and

Chris Hanlon, Chief Executive Officer, Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Copyright Amendment Bill 2006: Discussion

Date: 07 November, 2006 
Committee: STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Reference: Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 
Place: Canberra
Questioner: Senator LUNDY; Senator LUDWIG; CHAIR 
Responder: Prof. Fitzgerald; Mr Clapperton; Mr Knight; Mr Gonsalves; Mr Hanlon; Mr Scott; Mr Small
Page: 21 
Proof: Yes
Database: Committees Considering Bills
Proof: Yes
Source: Senate

Mr Gonsalves—Yes, we do have a view about that. We think that having provisions that prohibit contracting out have the potential to damage online emerging markets because they interfere with the freedom of copyright owners and consumers to strike a deal and contract on certain terms in relation to the use of works.

I will come back to Senator Ludwig’s question about whether this legislation achieves the balance. I believe that it does. There are numerous protections in the legislation. One is the requirement that the TPM be used in connection with the exercise of copyright. That in itself can be interpreted by a court to eliminate the potential abuses that we have seen in the US.

Furthermore, there are two very specific carve-outs which address those issues as explained in the explanatory memorandum. So I think there is ample scope for a court to avoid abuse of these provisions. I would like to discuss very briefly why it is so important for pure access controls to be protected without a link to copyright infringement. Again, it is because of the emerging and increasing online exploitation of copyright works. Xbox Live, for example, is a service made available by Microsoft for players around the world through the internet to play Xbox online. The playing of that computer game may or may not involve a reproduction. It may not involve a copyright right at all. Clearly there is a subscription model here—you pay to play the game online.

If the access controls which are applied to that game to protect the subscription model can be freely circumvented then that is the end of that business. That is why those sorts of models need to be protected. There are also potential child protection issues as well, because parental locks can be used and access controls can actually prevent children from gaining access to inappropriate material. Again, having strong protection for access controls allows the taking of action against those who might seek to peddle tools to get around those sorts of parental locks or circumvention devices.

Mr Hanlon—I would like to make one final comment in relation to this access copy control issue. All the academic arguments we have heard today and the way that this legislation is worded is extremely important. It has an impact in the marketplace. In relation to the games industry, people do not chip a $1,000 games console to get around the problem and the inconvenience of not being open to play some NTSC game they bought in America; they do it to play pirated games. It is a $100 million problem in our industry. It has implications other than just piracy.

As Maurice mentioned, in the games industry now we embed the OFLC classification code—the P, PG, M, MA, M15+—in disks now. That is an access control. If access controls are not recognised under this legislation, it means that the additional efforts we go to to ensure that parents can monitor what games kids are playing in their homes is also compromised. All these decisions have a huge impact in the marketplace, particularly in relation to piracy.

******

Three new reports from the ACMA. Two problem promotions for BLUE HEELERS and THE SUPERNATURAL, and too many 'Fucks' in HOW TO BE A PROPERTY DEVELOPER.

Australian Communications and Media Authority
15 November 2006
MR 137/2006

ACMA finds Blue Heelers promotion on STQ 7 exceeded G classification

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that Channel Seven Queensland Pty Ltd, the licensee of STQ Regional Queensland, breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice (the code) by broadcasting a promotion for Blue Heelers that failed to comply with the restrictions in G viewing periods and the G classification requirements.

On 6 January 2006, ACMA received a complaint about a promotion for Blue Heelers, which was broadcast by STQ 7 on 2 October 2005. The complainant alleged that the promotion contained content that was unsuitable for broadcast during family viewing periods.

ACMA determined that the licensee breached clause 3.8.3 of the code by failing to comply with the restrictions in G viewing periods with regard to violence. This clause provides that promotions in G viewing periods must not contain any form of violence to children. The code also provides that material classified G must be very mild in impact.

In ACMA's view, the promotion entirely concerns the discovery of the body of a murdered schoolgirl, and the cumulative impact of the visuals and the strong theme is stronger than 'very mild'. The Seven Network, on behalf of the licensee, accepted the breach finding.

Because there have been a number of breaches of the program promotions provisions over the last two years, ACMA requested the Seven Network to provide appropriate assurances regarding steps it has taken to prevent the likelihood of future breaches.

In response the Seven Network has:

reviewed its promotion classifications and scheduling procedures; created a new internal promotion category to identify program promotions suitable for placement in programs mainly directed to children or programs with a substantial child audience; upgraded the procedure for assessing the classification for promotions; introduced a computerised scheduling system which eliminates the possibility of human error in promotions scheduling; and reminded all promotions staff of the obligations and requirements of the code. ACMA is satisfied that the Seven Network has comprehensively addressed the compliance issues raised by the breach finding.

The investigation report is available on the ACMA website

Media contact: Paul Slocum, Communications and Publishing Manager, (03) 9963 6966.

Backgrounder

ACMA conducts various types of investigations under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the Act). Investigations under Part 11 of the Act are conducted in response to complaints received by ACMA relating to a possible breach by:

a licensed broadcaster of the Act, the regulations, a licence condition, a class licence or a code of practice; or the ABC or SBS of a code of practice. If a person wishes to complain about something of concern they have seen or heard on a program broadcast by a radio or TV station, and the matter is covered by a code of practice, the person must, by law, first make a written complaint to the station.

However, if a complaint relates to a matter covered by a licence condition, the person can complain directly to ACMA and need not complain to the station first.

There is a different code of practice for each broadcasting sector, and each code of practice contains a section that explains the complaints process that applies to that sector.

As some codes impose time limits for complaints, it is advisable that persons who wish to make a complaint write to the radio or TV station as soon as possible. For instance, the code of practice that applies to commercial television broadcasters enables them to decide to not respond in writing to complaints that are made more than 30 days after the date of broadcast.

When making a complaint to ACMA, persons must provide a copy of their complaint to the station, a copy of the station's reply if this has been received, and any other relevant correspondence with the station. ACMA takes all complaints seriously (except for those that are frivolous or vexatious or not made in good faith) and acknowledges all complaints in writing.

For valid complaints, ACMA considers the information provided and offers the relevant station an opportunity to give its side of the story. When all relevant information is available, ACMA assesses the complaint against the relevant licence condition or code of practice. When an investigation is completed, ACMA is required to notify a complainant of the results of an investigation under Part 11 of the Act. The form this is to take is not specified in the Act - sometimes it is in the form of a letter, but more usually it takes the form of an investigation report, which is provided to both the complainant and the licensee concerned.

***

Investigation Report No. 1652

File no. PF2006/188 
Licensee Channel Seven Queensland Pty Ltd 
Station STQ 7 
Type of service Commercial Television Broadcasting Service 
Program name A promotion for Blue Heelers. 
Date of broadcast 2 October 2005 
Relevant code: Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2004: 
* Clause 2.4 (Classification of Other Material) 
* Clause 3.8 (Restrictions in G Viewing Periods and in Certain Other G Programs) 
*Clause 2 of Appendix 4 (The G Classification)

Investigation Conclusion

Channel Seven Queensland Pty Ltd, the licensee of STQ 7, breached Clause 2.4 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice (the Code) by not complying with Clause 3.8.3 (Restrictions in G Viewing Periods and in Certain Other G Programs) and the G Classification requirements in Clause 2 of Appendix 4.

The Complaint

On 6 January 2006 the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint about a promotion for Blue Heelers broadcast by Channel Seven Queensland Pty Ltd, the licensee of commercial television broadcasting service STQ 7. The complainant alleged that a promotion for Blue Heelers, broadcast during the G classified Disney feature film The Country Bears on 2 October 2005 at 6.30pm in the PG time zone, contained content that was offensive and unsuitable for broadcast during family viewing periods.

Not satisfied with the written response provided by Network Seven, the complainant forwarded the matter to ACMA for investigation.

The Program Promotion

The 20 second promotion advertises an episode of the Australian police drama series, Blue Heelers.

It begins with text on screen which reads: “Australia’s most successful crime drama.” Male voice over states: “In the history of Australia’s most successful crime drama…”

The first shot shows a night time scene outdoors: a male looks with some concern at something offscreen. The same male reaches out to touch the shoulder of a bare-chested male leaning against a tree. The bare-chested male turns towards him and a closer shot reveals that he has blood on his face. Voice over says: “There has never been a more shocking episode.”

A uniformed female police officer stands by a sports field in daylight. A uniformed male police officer, standing by a grandstand, turns to look back at a figure in the foreground. This cuts to a shot in which female police officer appears to comfort a young female. Voice over says, “A schoolgirl’s murder leads you to the most evil discovery imaginable.” A brief overhead shot shows two uniformed male police officers watching a third police officer approach a group of trees through which a body wearing a dress can be seen.

A fast moving montage includes shots of: A male police officer picks up what appears to be a purse on a chain. A blonde female stands at the glass window of a cell door, dragging her fingers down the glass. A male’s hands clutch a stained cloth. This shot has been tinted blue but in the context of this sequence the stain is clearly inferred to be blood. A laughing male is dragged out of his chair by the scruff of his collar, implicitly during police interrogation. Hands remove a young female’s photo ID from the purse. A male police officer photographs the crime scene near the oval.

A stooping male with a torch straightens himself up. Voice over says: “Parental discretion is advised.” This dissolves over the close up image of a young female’s face. The text: “Parental discretion advised” appears over the female’s face. The image zooms in to the female’s eye to reveal the text: “Blue Heelers”. Voice over says: “Wednesday on Seven.” This shot cuts to a final screen featuring the text: “Blue Heelers. Wednesday. 8.30. All new.”

Assessment

In assessing the licensee’s compliance with the Code, ACMA considered a recording of the promotion complained about and submissions supplied by Network Seven on behalf of the licensee on 3 March 2006.

The promotion for Blue Heelers has been assessed against clauses 2.4 and 3.8 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice and clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of Appendix 4 to the Code. This promotion was broadcast during a G classified program that screened in part between 7.00pm and 8.30pm. Clause 3.8 requires that the G program promotions criteria apply to material broadcast in breaks in G programs in this time period.

Relevant provisions

The Code contains the following provisions:

Classification of Other Material

          2.4 All other material for broadcast: Subject to Clauses 2.3 and 2.4.1, all other material for broadcast must be classified according to the Television Classification Guidelines (set out in Appendix 4) or, where applicable, the stricter requirements of Section 3: Program Promotions and Section 6: Classification and Placement of Commercials.

Restriction in G Viewing Periods and in Certain Other G Programs

3.8. Special restrictions apply to the content of program promotions in G viewing periods, or in G programs which start at 3.30pm on a weekday, or which are broadcast between 7.00pm and 8.30pm on any day. All such program promotions must comply with the G classification requirements set out in paragraph 2 of Appendix 4, and in addition must include no material which involves any of the following:

3.8.1 the use of guns, other weapons or dangerous objects in a manner clearly

intended to inflict harm on, or to seriously menace, people or animals;

3.8.2 punches, blows or other physical or psychological violence against people or

animals (other than in sequences that clearly depict comedy or slapstick

behaviour);

3.8.3 any form of violence or cruelty to children;

3.8.4 sequences that involve loss of life;

3.8.5 close-up vision of dead or wounded bodies;

      3.8.6 any visual depiction of suicide or intended means of suicide;

3.8.7 anything which has more than a very low sense of threat or menace;

3.8.8 visual depiction of nudity or partial nudity;

3.8.9 visual depiction of, or verbal reference to, sexual behaviour, except of the

most innocuous kind;

3.8.10 socially offensive or discriminatory language.

The General Classification

2. Material classified G is not necessarily intended for children but it must be very mild in impact and must not contain any matter likely to be unsuitable for children to watch without supervision.

2.1 Violence: Visual depiction of physical or psychological violence must be very restrained. The use of weapons, threatening language, sounds or special effects must have a very low sense of threat or menace, must be strictly limited to the story line or program context, must be infrequent and must not show violent behaviour to be acceptable or desirable.

Licensee’s submission

Network Seven stated in a submission dated 1 March 2006, that Blue Heelers “is a police drama and is classified M. The program promotion shows various snippets of the Mount Thomas police officers in action. The voice over for the promotion indicates that the officers are investigating the murder of a local school girl which leads to a shocking revelation. While the promotion uses dramatic music and does warn that parental discretion is advised for the particular episode of the program, the promotion itself does not contain any violence, coarse language or use of weapons and depicts only a very low sense of threat or menace. Seven believes that this promotion satisfies the relevant provisions of the Code.”

Findings And Reasons

Findings

For the reasons stated below, the licensee did not comply with Clause 3.8.3 or Clause 2 of Appendix 4 of the Code and has therefore breached Clause 2.4 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2004.

Reasons

          • Clause 3.8.3 explicitly prohibits material which “involves… any form of violence or cruelty to children”.

          • The promotion clearly involves violence to a child as it entirely concerns the discovery of the body of a murdered schoolgirl.

          • Although the shots are brief and contain relatively little visual detail, they are mostly sequenced in chronological order, establishing a clear narrative depicting the discovery of the body of a murdered schoolgirl and the interrogation of suspects. It includes visuals of a man with a bloody face at a location later revealed to be the crime scene, the discovery of a girl’s body and many shots of apparently distressed police officers. Voice over narration clearly establishes the context for these images, “A schoolgirl’s murder leads you to the most evil discovery imaginable.”

          • Clause 3.8.7 prohibits “anything which has more than a very low sense of threat or menace”. And Clause 2 of Appendix 4 notes that, “Material classified G… must be very mild in impact and must not contain any matter likely to be unsuitable for children to watch without supervision.” The cumulative impact of the visuals described above and the strong theme (the murder of a schoolgirl) is greater than very mild.

          • The promotion highlights the intensity of this particular episode of Blue Heelers. Voice over narration says, “In the history of Australia’s most successful crime drama there has never been a more shocking episode,” emphasising the horrific nature of the crime. The promotion concludes with sharp music stings and an ominous voice over which warns, “Parental discretion advised”. This further contributes to the impact of the promotion.

Network Seven’s response to preliminary breach finding

On 9 August 2006, ACMA forwarded a copy of its preliminary report to Network Seven inviting comment on its preliminary breach finding. Network Seven was also invited to make submissions about remedial action it would take in the event that a breach finding was made.

In its reply to ACMA, dated 21 August 2006, Network Seven noted that it accepted the findings of ACMA in relation to the breach of Clause 3.8.3 and Clause 2 of Appendix 4 of the Code.

Action taken

Network Seven stated that, to avoid future breaches of this nature, a copy of ACMA’s final investigation report will be distributed to the relevant classification and programming staff.

It is noted that this is the first breach of classification provisions by Network Seven licensees since January 2005 when an M classified promotion was screened during a PG time zone due to a scheduling error. However, in 2004, Network Seven licensees were found to be in breach of the Code three times for program promotions which were incorrectly classified.

In considering this matter, ACMA is seeking further information from Network Seven regarding the processes it will have in place to prevent future breaches in relation to program promotions.

Decision

I, Andree Wright, Executive Manager, Content, Codes and Education Branch, being the appropriate delegated officer of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, determine for the above reasons that the licensee of Channel Seven Queensland Pty Ltd breached Clause 2.4 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice (the Code) by not complying with Clause 3.8.3 (Restrictions in G Viewing Periods and in Certain Other G Programs) and the G Classification requirements in Clause 2 of Appendix 4.

******

Australian Government
Australian Communication and Media Authority
15 November 2006 
MR 138/2006

ACMA finds How To Be A Property Developer in breach of ASTRA Codes of Practice

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that FOXTEL Cable Television Pty Limited (FOXTEL) breached the ASTRA Codes of Practice Subscription Broadcast Television July 2003 (the codes) by broadcasting a program, How To Be A Property Developer, which failed to comply with the PG classification requirements for 'language'.

On 21 April 2006, ACMA received a complaint about How To Be A Property Developer, an XYZnetworks program which was broadcast by FOXTEL's The LifeStyle Channel on 2 November 2005. The complainant alleged that the program contained coarse language that exceeded what is permissible within the PG classification category.

ACMA determined that FOXTEL breached clause 3 of the codes by broadcasting material that was not consistent with the language requirements of the PG classification guidelines.

The codes state that the coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context. In ACMA's view the program contained moderate coarse language that was not infrequent.

ACMA notes the licensee's decision voluntarily to classify non-drama programs such as How To Be A Property Developer in addition to the requirement under the codes to classify films and drama programs only.

ACMA commends the following undertakings by FOXTEL in relation to the breach:

FOXTEL is to implement ASTRA Codes training, including training on classification obligations, on a six-month basis; 

FOXTEL's Executive Director - Content, Product Development and Delivery, has written to FOXTEL channel managers regarding program classifications; and 

FOXTEL and XYZnetworks are to collaborate to streamline complaint handling processes to ensure that all complaints are promptly brought to the attention of the relevant parties. ACMA acknowledges FOXTEL's sound history of compliance with the codes in the area of program classification and considers this action addresses the compliance issue raised by the investigation. ACMA will continue to monitor the licensee's performance in this regard.

The investigation report is available on the ACMA website

Media contact: Paul Slocum, Manager, ACMA Communications & Publishing on (03) 9963 6966

Backgrounder

ACMA conducts various types of investigations under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the Act). Investigations under Part 11 of the Act are conducted in response to complaints received by ACMA relating to a possible breach by:

a licensed broadcaster of the Act, the regulations, a licence condition, a class licence or a code of practice; or the ABC or SBS of a code of practice. If a person wishes to complain about something of concern they have seen or heard on a program broadcast by a radio or TV station, and the matter is covered by a code of practice, the person must, by law, first make a written complaint to the station.

However, if a complaint relates to a matter covered by a licence condition, the person can complain directly to ACMA and need not complain to the station first.

There is a different code of practice for each broadcasting sector, and each code of practice contains a section that explains the complaints process that applies to that sector.

As some codes impose time limits for complaints, it is advisable that persons who wish to make a complaint write to the radio or TV station as soon as possible. For instance, the code of practice that applies to commercial television broadcasters enables them to decide to not respond in writing to complaints that are made more than 30 days after the date of broadcast.

When making a complaint to ACMA, persons must provide a copy of their complaint to the station, a copy of the station's reply if this has been received, and any other relevant correspondence with the station. ACMA takes all complaints seriously (except for those that are frivolous or vexatious or not made in good faith) and acknowledges in writing all complaints.

For qualifying complaints, ACMA considers the information provided and offers the relevant station an opportunity to provide its perspectives. When all relevant information is available, ACMA assesses the complaint against the relevant licence condition or code of practice. When an investigation is completed, ACMA is required to notify a complainant of the results of an investigation under Part 11 of the Act. The form this notification is to take is not specified in the Act - sometimes it is in the form of a letter, but more usually it takes the form of a more formal investigation report, which is provided to both the complainant and the licensee concerned.

Generally, personal or private information provided in a complaint, including name and address details, are not disclosed to the licensee concerned if it is a licence condition matter. However, as code complaints are first made to a licensee, code complaints are usually made available to the licensee concerned. ACMA's usual practice is to not provide personal or private information in an investigation report.

Under the Act, ACMA has discretion whether or not to publish the report of an investigation conducted under Part 11 of the Act. ACMA is not required to publish an investigation report if publication would disclose matter of a confidential character or likely to prejudice the fair trial of a person. If ACMA intends to publish an investigation report that may adversely affect the interests of a person, ACMA must give the person an opportunity to make representations in relation to the matter.

ASTRA Codes of Practice Subscription Broadcast Television July 2003

The ASTRA Codes of Practice 2003 state:

3 PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION CODE

Licensees will classify films and drama programs, applying the program classification system contained in the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games issued by the Office of Film and Literature Classification which appear below (relevant extract - the Categories) and at Attachment B. Classifications, together with appropriate consumer advice, will be provided to ensure adequate warning regarding program content as set out in clauses 3.4 and 3.5.

Licensees will use their best endeavours to ensure that, where other programs are classified they will carry only OFLC classification symbols. This classification will have particular regard to the protection of children and will take into account the OFLC Guidelines below.

3.1 Program Classifications

Licensees will apply the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (the Guidelines) issued by the Office of Film and Literature Classification to all films and drama programs. The full text of the Guidelines effective March 2003 can be found at Attachment B of these codes.

The Guidelines are a tool for classifying films and drama programs. They help explain the different classification categories, and the scope and limits of material suitable for each category.

Classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles:

adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive; the need to take into account community concerns about: depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner. 

The Categories

PG Parental Guidance Impact test

The impact of the classifiable elements for material classified PG should be no higher than mild.

Note: Material classified PG may contain material which some children find confusing or upsetting, and may require the guidance of parents or guardians. It is not recommended for viewing by persons under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians.

Classifiable elements 

LANGUAGE

Coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context.

***

Investigation Report No. 1701 
File no. 2006/927 
Licensee FOXTEL Cable Television Pty Limited (FOXTEL) 
Channel The Lifestyle Channel 
Type of service Subscription television broadcasting
Name of program How To Be A Property Developer
Date/s of broadcast 2 November 2005 
Relevant legislation/code ASTRA Codes of Practice
Subscription Broadcast Television (July 2003)

Investigation conclusion 

On 2 November 2005 the licensee breached clause 3 of the ASTRA Codes of Practice Subscription Broadcast Television (July 2003) by broadcasting material that was not consistent with the language requirements of the PG classification guidelines. 

The complaint 

On 21 April 2006, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint about the PG-classified television program, How To Be A Property Developer. The program was broadcast by FOXTEL's 'The Lifestyle Channel' at approximately 8:30 pm on 2 November 2005. 

The complainant alleges that the program contained coarse language that exceeded what is permissible within the PG classification category.

 In his complaint to ACMA, the complainant also referred to coarse language used in the PG-classified program Heat in the Kitchen, also broadcast by FOXTEL's 'The Lifestyle Channel'. However as the complainant did not refer to a time or date of broadcast for this program in his original letter of complaint to the licensee, this aspect of the complaint has not been investigated. 

Not satisfied with the responses provided by FOXTEL, the complainant forwarded the matter to ACMA for investigation. 

The program 

The Lifestyle Channel program guide describes How To Be A Property Developer as follows: 

Everyone thinks they could make a fortune wheeling and dealing in the property market, if only they had the cash to start. But is it really that easy? Would you have the skills and the judgement to make a profit from buying and selling houses? In this new six-part series, property developer Gary McCausland follows the progress of two couples who are given the opportunity to find out if they make the grade as they become property traders - with the sole aim of making as much money as they can. With £250,000 each, two couples are given just nine months to buy and sell a minimum of three properties to invest in and which to sell. Watch as they negotiate with builders, try their hand at stripping floors, seek out bargains at salvage yards and try their luck at auction. Will it be as easy as they think to make a quick profit, or will they make some horrible - and costly - mistakes along the way? There's a lot to be gained - if they're successful, they'll get to keep the profits. 

The episode broadcast on 2 November 2005 was approximately one hour in duration and followed the progress of two couples as they bought properties in England and renovated them with the intention of selling them to make a profit. The licensee claims that a consumer warning alerting viewers to 'language that may offend' was broadcast before the commencement of the program. This warning did not refer to the program classification, nor was a classification symbol displayed throughout the duration of the program. FOXTEL submits, however, that the 'PG' classification symbol was contained in the on-screen FOXTEL Digital Guide. 

Assessment 

A copy of the program on VHS videotape was viewed and comments supplied by the licensee at ACMA's request were considered. 

Issues 

The complainant's concerns raise questions as to whether the program contains coarse language unsuitable for a PG classification. The complaint was therefore assessed against clauses 3 and 3.1 of the ASTRA Codes of Practice Subscription Broadcast Television (July 2003) (the Codes). 

Relevant code provisions 

The Codes contain the following provisions: 

3. PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION CODE 

Licensees will classify films and drama programs, applying the program classification system contained in the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games issued by the Office of Film and Literature Classification which appear below (relevant extract - the Categories) and at Attachment B. Classifications, together with appropriate consumer advice, will be provided to ensure adequate warning regarding program content as set out in clauses 3.4 and 3.5. 

Licensees will use their best endeavours to ensure that, where other programs are classified they will carry only OFLC classification symbols. This classification will have particular regard to the protection of children and will take into account the OFLC Guidelines below. 

3.1 Program Classifications 

Licensees will apply the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (the Guidelines) issued by the Office of Film and Literature Classification to all films and drama programs. The full text of the Guidelines effective March 2003 can be found at Attachment B of these codes. 

The Guidelines are a tool for classifying films and drama programs. They help explain the different classification categories, and the scope and limits of material suitable for each category. 

Classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles: 

(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; 

(b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; 

(c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive; 

(d) the need to take into account community concerns about: 

(i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and 

(ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

The Categories … 

PG Parental Guidance 

Impact test 

The impact of the classifiable elements for material classified PG should be no higher than mild. Note: Material classified PG may contain material which some children find confusing or upsetting, and may require the guidance of parents or guardians. It is not recommended for viewing by persons under 15 without guidance from parents or guardians.

Classifiable elements 

LANGUAGE 

Coarse language should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context. 

Complainant's submissions 

In correspondence to FOXTEL, dated 3 November 2005 and 27 January 2006, the complainant alleged that: o the program contained constant, obscene language, with f-language being used liberally; and o the content of FOXTEL's programs rated PG do not fall within the bounds of the terminology applied to the PG rating.

Licensee's submissions 

In regard to clauses 3 and 3.1 of the Codes the licensee submitted: o Clause 3 of the Codes requires licensees to classify film and drama programs. How To Be A Property Developer is not a film and falls outside the definition of 'drama' contained within the Codes as it is a reality show and not scripted. Accordingly, FOXTEL is not obligated to classify the program. 

o Clause 3 of the Codes requires the licensee to use its best endeavours, where other programs are classified, to use only OFLC symbols. This must take into account the Guidelines issued by the OFLC and have particular regard to the protection of children. The requirement to take account of the Guidelines should be contrasted to the requirement to apply the Guidelines as is the case with respect to drama and film. 

o In this case, FOXTEL used OFLC symbols and How To Be A Property Developer was given a classification of PG. While this rating does not appear in the warning board, the PG rating that the complainant refers to was contained in the on-screen FOXTEL digital guide.

o The coarse language contained in the program was not used in a threatening or violent sense and occurred in the context of dealing with the challenges and pitfalls of home renovation. 

o The coarse language was justified by context and the impact of the coarse language was no higher than mild.

o The warning board provided viewers with sufficient warning that coarse language was contained in the program. How to be a Property Developer was shown at 8:30 pm, at a time when it is less likely that a younger viewer would be affected. Both of these factors provide protection for children.

Finding 

For the reasons stated below, the material broadcast by the licensee was not consistent with the PG classification guidelines and therefore the licensee has breached clause 3 of the ASTRA Codes of Practice Subscription Broadcast Television (July 2003). 

Reasons 

o It is noted that the Codes require only films and drama programs to be classified and as the current program is neither a film or drama program, it is not required to be classified. However, as the licensee has given the program a PG classification, the licensee is obliged to ensure that the classification 'will have particular regard to the protection of children and will take into account the OFLC Guidelines'. Any distinction between 'applying' and 'taking into account' this classification does not alter this obligation placed on the licensee. 

o The OFLC Guidelines make clear that the language permitted in PG classified programs should be 'mild', 'infrequent' and 'justified by context'. 

o The program contains approximately 27 uses of the word 'fuck', including the words 'fuck', 'fucking' and 'fuckers'. There was no apparent attempt to obscure any of the coarse language contained in the program. 

o It is considered that this language is not 'mild' language, rather it is at the level of 'moderate' coarse language suitable for the M classification. 

o Twenty-seven uses of the word 'fuck' in a one-hour program is not considered infrequent. 

o It is considered that some of the coarse language is used in a somewhat aggressive manner, either when talking about other people or to people directly. This is considered to heighten the impact of the coarse language. For example: 

o The builder speaking directly to the camera about his employers says, "If I was working for a developer and I was treated like they treat me, I'd have told 'em to stick it up their fucking arses, and walked off ages ago". 

o The employer says to the builder, "If you're not going to have any fucking respect for me, you can just do one now… You've walked off the job, you owe us fucking work". Shortly after this, the same woman says to the camera, "What an absolute fucking loser". 

o It is noted that a consumer warning alerting viewers to 'language that may offend' was screened prior to the commencement of the program. However, as the program was classified PG, the level of coarse language contained in the program would have likely exceeded what a viewer would reasonably expect in a PG classified program, regardless of the broadcast of the consumer warning immediately prior to the program's commencement. Accordingly, the consumer warning would not have sufficiently alerted viewers who were aware of the program's classification to the level of coarse language contained in the program. 

o As the program was classified PG, viewers should reasonably expect that the program would be suitable for children under the age of 15 to watch with adult supervision. The licensee's submission that as the program was broadcast at the later timeslot of 8:30 pm and as such a younger audience would be less likely to be affected, is not a relevant consideration where a program has been classified.

FOXTEL response to preliminary breach finding 

On 7 September 2006, ACMA forwarded a copy of its preliminary breach report to the licensee inviting comments on its preliminary breach finding. The licensee was also invited to make submissions about remedial action it would take in the event that a breach finding was made. 

In its reply to ACMA, dated 25 September 2006, the licensee disagreed with ACMA's finding. The licensee maintained that the requirement to "take into account" the OFLC Guidelines should be contrasted to the requirement to "apply" the Guidelines. In relation to this point, the licensee submitted: 

o The requirement to take into account the Guidelines suggests an element of discretion is permitted in the interpretation of the Guidelines and the terms 'mild' and 'infrequent'. As the Guidelines do not provide a number of uses of coarse language that would constitute frequent use, frequency (as well as impact test) must be assessed against other measures such as community standards and the context of the program. 

o Determining whether the use of coarse language falls within the boundaries of the Guidelines is subject to varying values and expectations of different viewers.

The licensee also maintained that the coarse language in the program was mild, infrequent and justified by context, for the following reasons: 

o The use of coarse language in the program was justified by context in that it was used in the context of dealing with the challenges and pitfalls of home renovation. 

o The impact of the word 'fuck' is no higher than mild. This view of community standards is supported by Magistrate Hellpern's judgement in the case of R v Dunn (27 August 1999), as well as the fact that only one complaint was made to ACMA about coarse language used in the program. 

o The coarse language in the program was not used in a threatening or violent sense, with menace or in a way likely to cause fear or intimidation. The impact was not heightened by the way in which the language was used. 

o Frequency is not defined in the Guidelines and must be viewed in conjunction with all other parts of the classifiable element of Language. Accordingly, where the use of coarse language is mild and justified by context, frequency must be defined in a much broader sense.

The licensee also maintained that particular regard for children was exercised for the following reasons: 

o The OFLC Guidelines were taken into account when classifying the program, and a warning board was displayed before the program. 

o The program was targeted at viewers over 25 and the subject matter was unlikely to appeal to children. The likelihood of children viewing the program was significantly reduced and this is supported by audience ratings for the program. 

o As the only place the classification appeared was in the on-screen digital guide, the warning board provided a significantly more prominent warning for consumers.

The delegate remains of the view that as the licensee had given the program a PG classification, the licensee is obliged to ensure that the classification 'will have particular regard to the protection of children and will take into account the OFLC Guidelines'. The delegate remains of the view that the coarse language used in the program was not mild, infrequent and justified by context, and therefore does not comply with the PG classification criteria for language. 

Action taken 

FOXTEL has noted in its response that classification training was conducted in August 2006 by XYZnetworks for the channels they manage, including The Lifestyle Channel. 

ACMA notes that FOXTEL has taken the following steps in response to the breach finding: 

o FOXTEL will implement ASTRA Codes training, including training on classification obligations, on a 6 month basis. 

o FOXTEL's Executive Director - Content, Product Development and Delivery, has written to the channel managers requesting that the sensitivities of FOXTEL's viewers be respected and to err on the side of caution when classifying programs. 

o FOXTEL and XYZnetworks are working together to streamline the complaint handling process to ensure that all complaints are promptly brought to the attention of the relevant parties.

The delegate considers these actions address the compliance issues raised by the investigation and notes that the licensee has not breached this provision of the code during the last three years. The licensee's performance in this regard will continue to be monitored. 

Decision 

I, Andrée Wright, Executive Manager, Codes, Content and Education Branch, being the appropriate delegated officer of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, determine for the above reasons that the licensee, FOXTEL, in relation to the broadcast of an episode of How To Be A Property Developer on 2 November 2005, breached clause 3 of the ASTRA Codes of Practice Subscription Television (July 2003) by incorrectly classifying material as PG. 

******

Australian Government
Australian Communication and Media Authority
17 November 2006
MR 139/2006

ACMA finds The Supernatural promotion on ATV Melbourne exceeded PG classification 

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that Network Ten (Melbourne) Pty Ltd (ATV), the licensee of commercial television service ATV Melbourne, breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice (the code) by broadcasting a promotion for The Supernatural that failed to comply with the restrictions in PG viewing periods and the PG classification requirements.

On 16 June and 10 July 2006, ACMA received two complaints about a promotion for The Supernatural, which was broadcast by ATV on 27 May 2006. The complainants alleged that the promotion contained content that was unsuitable for broadcast during family viewing periods.

ACMA determined that ATV breached clause 2.4 of the code by failing to comply with the restrictions in PG viewing periods.

The code states that promotions in PG viewing periods must not contain anything which has more than a mild sense of threat or menace. The code also states that material classified PG must be mild in impact.

In ACMA’s view the promotion, which showed a child frightened by a sinister robed figure outside and within the child’s bedroom, has an impact which is greater than mild.

In response to the finding, Network Ten has undertaken to distribute ACMA’s report to the relevant classifiers and promotions’ producers and use the finding as an example in regular code training sessions with staff, to ensure future compliance.

ACMA is satisfied that Network Ten has addressed the compliance issues raised by the breach finding.

The investigation report is available here on the ACMA website.

Media contact: Paul Slocum ACMA Communication and Publishing Manager on (03) 9963 6966.

Backgrounder

ACMA conducts various types of investigations under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the Act). Investigations under Part 11 of the Act are conducted in response to complaints received by ACMA relating to a possible breach by:

a licensed broadcaster of the Act, the regulations, a licence condition, a class licence or a code of practice; or the ABC or SBS of a code of practice. If a person wishes to complain about something of concern they have seen or heard on a program broadcast by a radio or TV station, and the matter is covered by a code of practice, the person must, by law, first make a written complaint to the station.

However, if a complaint relates to a matter covered by a licence condition, the person can complain directly to ACMA and need not complain to the station first.

There is a different code of practice for each broadcasting sector, and each code of practice contains a section that explains the complaints process that applies to that sector.

As some codes impose time limits for complaints, it is advisable that persons who wish to make a complaint write to the radio or TV station as soon as possible. For instance, the code of practice that applies to commercial television broadcasters enables them to decide to not respond in writing to complaints that are made more than 30 days after the date of broadcast.

When making a complaint to ACMA, persons must provide a copy of their complaint to the station, a copy of the station’s reply if this has been received, and any other relevant correspondence with the station. ACMA takes all complaints seriously (except for those that are frivolous or vexatious or not made in good faith) and acknowledges all complaints in writing.

For valid complaints, ACMA considers the information provided and offers the relevant station an opportunity to give its side of the story. When all relevant information is available, ACMA assesses the complaint against the relevant licence condition or code of practice. When an investigation is completed, ACMA is required to notify a complainant of the results of an investigation under Part 11 of the Act. The form this is to take is not specified in the Act – sometimes it is in the form of a letter, but more usually it takes the form of an investigation report, which is provided to both the complainant and the licensee concerned.

Generally, personal or private information provided in a complaint, including name and address details, are not disclosed to the licensee concerned if it is a licence condition matter. However, as code complaints are first made to a licensee, code complaints are usually made available to the licensee concerned. ACMA’s usual practice is to not provide personal or private information in an investigation report.

Under the Act, ACMA has discretion whether or not to publish the report of an investigation conducted under Part 11 of the Act. ACMA is not required to publish an investigation report if publication would disclose matter of a confidential character or likely to prejudice the fair trial of a person. If ACMA intends to publish an investigation report that may adversely affect the interests of a person, ACMA must give the person an opportunity to make representations in relation to the matter.

******

Yet more banned hardcore! Metro Interactive lost BIG BLACK STICKS IN LITTLE WHITE SLITS and DILDORAMA. Whilst Calvista lost HOUSE OF SHAME.

******

This year has seen a big increase in the incidence of hardcore titles being banned. Indeed, in the past few months things have really taken off. These are the numbers.

October: 8 RC
September: 7 RC
August: 3 RC
July: 1 RC
June: 5 RC
May: 1 RC
April: 2 RC
March: 2 RC
February: 1 RC
January: 0 RC

So it is easy to see why a company like Adultshop.com have had enough. They have just launched an anti-censorship website aimed at informing the public about the current situation. 

As mentioned in the last update, they are also challenging the X18+ awarded to VIVA EROTICA.

******

Interviews with Robbie Swan and Fiona Patten regarding current censorship problems facing the adult industry in Australia.

The fledgling adult industry. The Fifth Estate 25.10.06

Robbie Swan explains, there has already been confusion over how to classify DVDs in the X-rated category. The proscription against "violence, sexual violence, sexualised violence, coercion, sexually assaultive language" results in films that are not allowed to have dramatic storylines or even modest production values.

"Because someone says somewhere in there, someone's been trying to make a genuine drama in there … and says "f--k you", instead of "f--k me" … the film gets banned because it's called 'assaultive language', and you're not even allowed to have mildly assaultive language in there", he says.

"You could even have the film banned if there's a knife on the table sometimes. You know, no-ones's using it or anything, but just the threat, the possibility that someone could pick up the knife at some stage and could plunge it into someone, that's deemed to be enough to be some form of violence that's not allowed in X-rating".

******

This is an excerpt of the grilling that SBS managing director, Shaun Brown, received during Senate Estimates. Much of it was taken up with the ALP's Stephen Conroy questions regarding commercials being screened during programs.

The Liberal's Michael Ronaldson, and  Concetta Fierravanti-Wells also questioned how balanced and impartial were news and current affairs items? The full text can be found at www.aph.gov.au.

Here is Shaun Brown with more information on the SOUTH PARK 'BLOODY MARY' episode.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS: Special Broadcasting Service Corporation: Discussion
Date: 30 October, 2006 
Committee name: STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS
Department: Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Program Special Broadcasting Service Corporation
Page: 3 
Proof: Yes
Database: Estimates Comm. 
Source: Senate

Talk Senator RONALDSON—What about documentaries? Surely political matter and controversial matters are in documentaries.

Talk Mr Brown—That is the example I have given you. So an initial decision about a series of programs like the The power of nightmares and The new al-Qaeda was made in principle at a level of program acquisition, referred to the then network programmer, referred to me as head of television and, at the time, Acting Managing Director as well. So it is a decision process that takes place at many levels. But, ultimately, under a referral-up process, and depending on the sensitivity or how controversial it is, it will end up in my hands. Another example is the South Park ‘Bloody Mary’ episode, which is something SBS acquired that has considerable sensitivity around it, particularly in the current climate of religious sensitivity. The matter was referred to me and I have deferred broadcast of it. That is a good example.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—But you were forewarned about the sensitivity, weren’t you? You did not acquire this program and say, ‘This is a nice, cute little program,’ and then decide to have a look at it. It came to SBS as a controversial program, so there is no doubt that you would then have a look at it.

Talk Mr Brown—It came to SBS as a pre-contracted delivery of a series of programs.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—Which you knew was controversial.

Talk Mr Brown—Once it was referred to me, I did.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—You did not know South Park was controversial before that?

Talk Mr Brown—I am talking about a particular episode of South Park.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—I take it there is no process in place to refer these matters unless someone makes a judgement that it might be more political or more controversial than something else. Is that right? What are the criteria?

Talk Mr Brown—That is the only way any referral-up process can ever work, whether it is news and current affairs or programming. It is reliant upon people at all levels recognising when a matter is controversial or sensitive and referring it appropriately

***

Labor's Stephen Conroy questions Shaun Brown about the 'Steve Irwin' episode of SOUTH PARK. Don't you just love the internet. You can see exactly what all the fuss it about here.

Talk Senator CONROY—Fantastic. Congratulations. Before I move on to a couple of other areas in sport, I did notice that there was some publicity—and I note you have already mentioned South Park once today—and that there is some controversy around a forthcoming South Park episode to do with a betrayal of Steve Irwin?

Talk Mr Brown—Yes, I do not know much about that one. The South Park I was referring to was one of a previous series called ‘Bloody Mary’. I only know what I have read in the newspaper briefly about it. It is not something that is subject to an offer from SBS at this stage.

Talk Senator CONROY—Sorry, ‘it is not something that’?

Talk Mr Brown—It is not something that is subject to any sort of contract with SBS at this stage. The series that is going into America is still a year or so away from even being shown to us for consideration. So I could not indicate our view on that.

Talk Senator CONROY—Is good taste an SBS criteria—or bad taste is not?

Talk Mr Brown—It is a very vexed question in terms of comedy, because satirical comedy is almost inevitably in bad taste—bad taste used for effect. That is not to say that we are not sensitive to points where we believe a line may be overstepped.

***

What would Senate Estimates be without accusations of SBS screening porn? Here, Shaun Brown does a good job of defending the station as the Liberal's Concetta Fierravanti-Wells keeps up the conservative tradition. 

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—I am sure it will be. At the last estimates you conceded that there had been a failure to adequately manage an online forum about Vietnamese nurses, which resulted in the site being hacked with multiple pornographic references of Asian school girls and so forth. I have to say they were quite disgusting, and I am not going to repeat them—I think I provided them to you on the last occasion. You have informed us that, as a result of this episode, you have taken steps to make sure that your management of this kind of forum is more professional. Do you want to comment on that and the steps you may have taken in relation to that?

Talk Mr Brown—I am not in a position to specifically address that.

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—Perhaps you might take that on notice, thank you. Perhaps the people responsible for this sort of pornographic hacking may have been at least partly inspired by some of the late night content that SBS sends to air. SBS’s description of The Film Biker, on 15 October, said:

Gregory then meets the beautiful Anna ... and falls in love with her. When he discovers that she works as a prostitute, he decides to save her. However, his job is threatened as multiplexes drive film bikers and projectionists out of work and the couple are forced into a seedy amateur porn movie in order to make money.

All from your documentary series.

Talk Mr Brown—What was the name of that film?

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—It is called The Film Biker, and it was advertised on SBS in TV What’s On. It was promoted on 15 October. There is another one from your documentary series, When sex goes wrong, with such insightful gems, for example, in episode 6:

... individuals recount their most disgusting experiences during sex.

Can you explain to me how this and similar programs conform to SBS’s charter? Why should I and millions of other taxpayers subsidise porn on SBS?

Talk Mr Brown—I do not accept your assertion that it is porn, because SBS operates under the classification guidelines that other broadcasters do. We do not broadcast porn.

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—Might I withdraw ‘porn’ and say ‘highly unsuitable material’?

Talk Mr Brown—Certainly. Whether it is suitable or not is very much a subjective judgement. The first one you mentioned, The Film Biker, I cannot say I am familiar with it, but we carry a wide range of films from around the world. It is accepted that the breadth of material that SBS covers and brings to air is sometimes challenging for some audiences. You asked me how it conforms to the charter. I cannot say the matter of sexually explicit content is reflected in any part of the charter. The charter really deals more with the obligations of SBS, under its primary objective, to inform, educate and entertain all Australians. There are supplementary requirements, one of which is that we show programs in the language of preference, and The Film Biker—I am not sure what nationality it is, but there is a possibility it is a foreign language movie, in which case it conforms to that.

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—It was from the Philippines.

Talk Mr Brown—There you go. The test is not really how an individual program fails the charter. It is more a question of how the totality of the services that are available across all of SBS make sure that the charter is given effect.

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—But surely the content of what goes to SBS must, in some way, conform to the charter. I really find that those sorts of films—I would like you, if you would, to go back and comment on this as to how this forms part of the charter. That is your starting point. I really do not see how what you are showing—these are just two examples; I am sure there are others—conform to the charter. That is my point, but you can prove to me otherwise.

Talk Mr Brown—I understand the point you are making. You are really addressing a classification issue. Are you addressing a classification issue?

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—No, I am not.

Talk Mr Brown—You do not think these things should be shown?

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—I am just asking how they fit into SBS’s charter, and where it fits into SBS’s charter.

Talk Mr Brown—Can I be clear on this: this is not a view that this material should not be shown; it is a view that it should not be shown on SBS.

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—From a personal perspective, I have my own personal view on that. My question to you is: how does it fit in, how does showing this sort of material on SBS conform to its charter? That is my question. In the same vein, I want to take you now to your answer to question 265. That was the question I asked about Stripperella and another program. I have to tell you that your argument that the SBS charter these days includes supporting the production of a striptease comic voiced by Pamela Anderson is really questionable. Again, where does SBS get this from the original charter? Why should taxpayers be funding what is really, quite frankly, totally inappropriate material?

Talk Mr Brown—Let us put this into context. Stripperella is an American adult animation series. I think we put 10 episodes to air, so we are talking about five hours of content. It follows a tradition on SBS to promote adult animation to a degree that no other broadcaster does. Whether it is Japanese animation like Ghost in the Shell and Champloo or South Park or bro’Town, the New Zealand one which is currently on air, the fact is that this is a commitment by SBS that has been going on for some years and is not contrary to the charter. What is more, that commitment to embrace adult animation led SBS to invest in Harvie Krumpet—the only network to win an Oscar for its production. This is all part of the same mix.

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—Yes, but Harvie Krumpet is not quite in the same vein as Stripperella.

Talk Mr Brown—That is a subjective view. I do not allow myself to run through programs and make a selective view on the ones I like and the ones I do not like. I maintain a stream of content, some of which, personally, I may not bother to watch. I do not think you can challenge our commitment to the charter by isolating five hours of adult animation out of a tradition on SBS that has been running for many years, that SBS has produced thousands of hours of and that has culminated in SBS being the only television network in Australia to win an Oscar.

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—The point I am getting at is that Harvie Krumpet is not in that same vein. Why should taxpayers’ money be used, in effect, to fund what is just smut? I mean, really! Where does it fit into the charter that this sort of stuff should go to air? I mean, really! How is it informative to the benefit of all Australians?

Talk Mr Brown—It is not informative; it is entertaining.

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—For the benefit of all Australians?

Talk Mr Brown—That is also in the charter.

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—It also qualifies for the benefit of all Australians. I would like a comprehensive answer. I would like you to go back and look at some of this stuff and identify how it conforms to the charter and why lots of taxpayers’ money should be used to subsidise this sort of stuff on television.

Talk Mr Brown—I am not sure that I see—

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—We will agree to disagree on that.

Talk Mr Brown—Are you lumping Stripperella in with the others? Is it the continuation of the same line that this is distasteful content?

Talk Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—I am. I will move on from smut and pornography to the issue of far-left-wing bias. 

***

The Green's Bob Brown spoke in support of SBS.

Talk Senator BOB BROWN—I ask you to take this question on notice. Would you do a comparison between commercial operators in Australia and the ABC and SBS to see which has the greater or lesser content of violence going to air, and of sexually explicit material, because that is what Senator Fierravanti-Wells is bringing to the fore here today, and report back to the committee on that comparison, both on the quality and time that that sort of program is going to air?

I am hearing here that, in some way or other, there has to be a restriction clamped on SBS on this occasion, and it is coming for the ABC, which ought not be put upon the commercial broadcasters, and yet both are funded by the public. If there is any difference in the approach we should take to restrict SBS and ABC in a way that commercial broadcasters ought not be restricted, what is it? Does experience show that the commercial broadcasters have been tighter in their censorship of violence, which I am much more concerned about, or of the sexually explicit material which Senator Fierravanti-Wells has been taking so much time to ask you about today?

Talk Senator Coonan—Any broadcaster in Australia has to comply with classification guidelines, Senator Brown. So, first of all, that is a standard requirement for all broadcasting. Because the national broadcasters are publicly funded, they have charters to observe which obviously the free-to-air broadcasters do not. But free-to-air broadcasters have both standards and codes of conduct that enable people who are offended by any content, or who would otherwise wish to complain, to complain to the regulator.

So it is not really an exercise that I could or should undertake, because they are very different types of organisation. One is a commercial organisation that can, within limits, do what it likes. It can advertise; it has a lot more freedom than the national broadcasters to do what it wishes so long as it does not infringe classification guidelines or, indeed, its own co-regulatory arrangement. It has a co-regulatory arrangement where it voluntarily observes a lot of the codes of conduct. They are about to be reviewed, starting next year, I believe. They are developed in consultation with the regulator and do involve some community consultation. It is just a very different type of broadcasting if it is a commercial broadcast supported by advertising, but it still has to comply with the classification arrangements, as do the national broadcasters.

Talk Senator BOB BROWN—The point I am making here is that the Australian public at large pays for both the public broadcasters and the commercial broadcasters. What I am asking you to give to the committee is an assessment of the difference in the restrictions on what can go to air. Already you have told the committee that there is less restriction on the commercial sector.

Talk Senator Coonan—No, I have said they are different. The commercial sector does not have to comply with a charter. What I can do is answer questions about whether or not the national broadcasters comply with the charter. Those questions can be put to me, but I do not see that trying to do some sort of comparative exercise in something that you really cannot compare is an appropriate task to ask me to do in supplementary estimates. I just cannot see that it is something that I could usefully do. But you most certainly can have, and I will produce for you, the codes of conduct and standards. I can produce all of the classification codes, and that will give you some opportunity, if you wish to pursue this point—and you are entirely free to do so—to make your own comparisons. Otherwise it is a value judgement.

Talk Senator BOB BROWN—No, it is a very important thing, you see, because it goes to the heart of democracy. A democracy is only as healthy as the information which the voters in that democracy get. I could make out a very strong case to say that, in some areas of commercial broadcasting, there is a huge, unremitting right-wing bias which attacks the fundamentals of democracy because it is not balanced. We are having an attempt here to paint the public broadcasters as in some way nonperformers when it comes to obligations to be fair to the public. I am saying the public put much more money into the upkeep of the commercial broadcasters than of the public broadcasters. What I want to know is: what is the difference in standards that apply to both in our democracy? We are also getting mores brought up by Senator Fierravanti-Wells. We are effectively hearing an attack on SBS as being licentious. I want to know if that is fair to SBS, given the performance of commercial broadcasters. Let me give you one example. I was in San Francisco last week. Due to jetlag I woke up at 12.30 am; I thought it was six o’clock or something—you know what it is like, Minister.

Talk Senator Coonan—You need to take some melatonin; it is the great mainstay of travellers.

Talk CHAIR—Try being a Western Australian coming to Canberra regularly. But can you proceed to your question, please?

Talk Senator BOB BROWN—It is about across-the-board violence. I turned from one program to the next. It is a culture of violence which worries me a great deal. I would like an assessment of how that is going in Australia. I believe there is more violence, more sex and more political bias on those high-rating commercial programs than there ever is on the public broadcasters. I would like an assessment of that. Senator Fierravanti-Wells is asking you to do a lot of work, Minister, in assessing the performance of SBS. I am saying: let’s extend it across the board. Will you do that for us?

Talk Senator Coonan—I cannot. To start with, the free-to-air broadcasters are not supported by an appropriation of the parliament. It does not arise. Their remit, other than their codes of conduct—

Talk Senator BOB BROWN—The public pays for them.

Talk Senator Coonan—I can produce the codes of conduct but I cannot do the exercise that you are seeking, Senator Brown. You can do it for yourself. You are certainly welcome to. You are welcome to make any comments, subject to the committee’s indulgence, that you wish, I would think, in terms of what proposition you might want to put. But it is not a proper exercise to be trying to compare something that does not really arise in supplementary estimates.

Talk Senator BOB BROWN—It is a fundamentally important exercise for our democracy.

Talk Senator Coonan—I am not saying it is not fundamentally important; I am saying it is not a proper task to ask me or the department to do, because anyone can watch free-to-air television and, if they do not infringe their licence conditions, the standards, the codes of conduct or the broader classification scheme which applies to all broadcasting, that is not something we can make value judgements about. I can produce for you the codes of conduct. You can then make a judgement if you wish about whether you think they are infringed, and there is a complaints mechanism to follow with the regulator.

Talk Senator BOB BROWN—The point from me, however, unless you can countermand it, is that they have more violence, more sexually explicit material and more political bias than the public broadcasters. Would you countermand that?

Talk Senator Coonan—I am not in a position to answer that sort of question, if indeed it is one that you can properly ask me, Senator Brown. I am trying to deal genuinely with your inquiry, as I always do. I do not just dismiss something you are trying to put to me.

Talk Senator BOB BROWN—I am very serious about it.

Talk Senator Coonan—What I am saying is that, without evidence that you want to produce to me, it is simply an assertion and I cannot agree or disagree.

Talk Senator BOB BROWN—I will just finish by saying that Senator Fierravanti-Wells is asking you and the good people from SBS to produce that evidence. I am saying it is fair that we ask for that across the board.

Talk Senator Coonan—But I cannot do that across the board, and I should not do it if it is not part of supplementary estimates. The taxpayer funds SBS. The taxpayer funds the ABC. They have very specific obligations under the charter, and that is why they are properly a subject for probing during estimates. That is why we are sitting here. The free-to-airs do not have to turn up. They do not have to answer any questions about it. They operate within a regulatory environment where the regulator will turn up. You are entitled to ask the regulator questions, and I will certainly produce the codes of conduct if that will help you.

Talk CHAIR—The regulator appears later this afternoon, later in the program. If you want to come back and ask ACMA their opinion about these matters, that would be an appropriate time. But it is not appropriate at the moment.

Talk Senator BOB BROWN—I just ask the minister once again—

Talk CHAIR—You have already put the question.

Talk Senator RONALDSON—Chair, this is an absolute nonsense argument. You have made your point, Senator Brown; let’s get on with it.

Talk Senator BOB BROWN—I ask the minister again: will you do an assessment?

Talk CHAIR—Senator, you have asked that for the third time and the minister has answered it twice.

Talk Senator Coonan—I really do not have a different answer, Senator Brown.

Talk Senator BOB BROWN—So the answer is no.

Talk CHAIR—That is not what the minister said.

Talk Senator Coonan—It is not no; it is a matter that is not appropriate for estimates.

Talk CHAIR—The minister said that it is not appropriate and also that SBS is a public broadcaster. I think Senator Wortley has a question.

Talk Senator ALLISON—I have a point of order. If Senator Brown’s question has been ruled out by the minister as being inappropriate to be asked and answered then so should the questions that were put by Senator Fierravanti-Wells.

Talk CHAIR—If I might answer that: the essential point is, as the minister said, that SBS is a public broadcaster, part funded by the federal government, and therefore it is appropriate that they are questioned at estimates. It is not appropriate to ask questions in relation to the free-to-air broadcasters, except to the regulator, which is ACMA. When that part of the agenda comes up, you are quite welcome to ask that question.

Talk Senator BOB BROWN—I have a point of order. Would you produce a ruling to say why it is not appropriate to ask about broadcasting services in the way that I have before an estimates committee? I think you are wrong. I think it is quite proper of me to ask the minister at this junction the questions I have put, and I stand by them.

Talk CHAIR—You may think that, but I think it is appropriate to be asked of the regulator. The minister has answered this question three times, and I think we will leave it at that and move on.

******

Mark Scott from the ABC was also questioned about balanced and impartiality on his station. The full text can be found at www.aph.gov.au. Here is a small excerpt where Labor's Stephen Conroy questions if the new guidelines will allow for the discussion of intelligent design on THE SCIENCE SHOW.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS: Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Discussion
Date: 30 October, 2006 
Committee name: STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS
Department Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Program Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Page: 53 
Proof: Yes
Database: Estimates Comm. 
Source: Senate

Senator CONROY—Will creationism be entitled to an airing on the Science Show if it has done a program on evolution? You cannot deny it is relevant. In the US it is an even bigger debate.

Talk Mr Scott—The judgement of that will be made on principal relevant viewpoint. For example, I know that there has been debate and discussion around intelligent design. I believe Mr Robin Williams has written a book around intelligent design, where the theory and arguments around intelligent design are examined.

Talk Senator CONROY—That is just a propaganda name for creationism. Why do you give it that—

Talk Mr Scott—Because that is the name that Mr Williams uses in his book on it. Principal relevant viewpoints is the test that our program makers will use.

Talk Senator CONROY—So is creationism getting its own show?

Talk Mr Scott—I am not getting into the specifics of it.

Talk Senator CONROY—I am; I am asking. These are the practical examples that you are going to have to answer.

Talk Mr Scott—Principal relevant viewpoints will be considered.

Talk Senator CONROY—Is creationism a principal relevant viewpoint that is now entitled to an airing under your new guidelines?

Talk Mr Scott—The question that the people on the Science Show will need to consider when they are discussing science is whether in fact they believe that creationism is a matter of science or a matter of faith.

Talk Senator CONROY—Ultimately your censor is going to decide this.

Talk Mr Scott—They will exercise that view based on their judgement of what the principal relevant views are on scientific matters. If in fact they believe that creationism is not a principal relevant view to do with scientific matters, then that will be the decision that they will make.

Talk Senator CONROY—They can make that decision—

Talk Mr Scott—If there was a complaint that came through to the complaints division on that, then we would evaluate the decision-making process over time. That is the way it will operate.

Talk Senator CONROY—Has creationism got a run on your network yet?

Talk Mr Scott—I am sure there have been investigations of the claims of creationism over the 20- or 30-year—

Talk Senator CONROY—Would it get as fair a go as evolutionism?

Talk Mr Scott—Principal relevant views. I want to be very clear: it is not about a stopwatch, it is not about timing it and it is not about weighing it all up; it is just making sure that principal relevant views—

Talk Senator CONROY—What I call ‘tick a box’.

Talk Mr Scott—No, not tick a box; principal relevant views being heard and expressed. That is the test.

Talk Senator CONROY—There is a very lively debate internationally about the teaching of creationism versus evolutionism.

Talk Mr Scott—If there was a discussion around whether evolution should be taught in schools in an educational program, I imagine in the completion of that program, yes, there would be discussion from the proponents of those who thought creationism should be taught in schools and those who did not think it should be taught in schools.

Talk Senator CONROY—No, that is news reporting issue.

Talk Mr Scott—You talked about the teaching of creationism in schools. I was taking that as an example to discuss the principal relevant viewpoints being expressed.

Talk Senator CONROY—No, what I was doing was highlighting that there is a lively debate out there.

Talk Mr Scott—Yes, indeed.

Talk Senator CONROY—The issue is what will be required of the Science Show under your new guidelines and whether or not the editors of the program will ultimately be second-guessed by your censor.

Talk Mr Scott—One of the good things about this process is that we are creating these policies and guidelines, but they will go to the program makers in the divisions to be implemented. I am not going to second-guess the Science Show makers here. They have been doing that show for the best part of 30 years, to international acclaim. I am saying that they will take these guidelines and they will know that when they are discussing science matters, either through that program or on Radio National over time, because it is the platform rather than the topical and factual programming, principal relevant views need to be expressed. That will be a judgement they make. If queries emerge from that, then there is a review process that will take place, as takes place now.

Talk Senator CONROY—So there must be a range of perspectives presented over time on each platform.

Talk Mr Scott—Yes.

The ALP are continuing on with their policy (if elected) of cleaning up the internet. Stephen Conroy recently presented a petition to the senate signed by 20,000 Christians.

******

The number of hardcore titles receiving RC ratings shows no sign of slowing. In just two days, four titles were added to the banned list. Calvista submitted DANGEROUS SEX, FUCK ME, PORN WARS 2, and Adult Media Group HUNGER WITHIN. 

******

Adultshop.com are appealing against the X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating awarded to VIVA EROTICA on September 29th. There is no mention of this appeal on the OFLC website. The DVD is a Vivid Compilation of sex scenes.

Online sex shop appeals film classification. News.com.au 27.10.06

Viva Erotica is a compilation of sex scenes from "classic porn movies'', mostly from the US, a spokeswoman for the retailer said

Adultshop.com said it had based its appeal on the findings of ACNielsen surveys it commissioned last month which found 70 per cent of Australians were not offended by explicit erotic films and 76 per cent believed the material should be available to adults who wish to view it.

"Our appeal is based on the fact the OFLC has failed to ensure that its classification decisions reflect current community standards,'' Adultshop.com managing director Malcolm Day said.

"In fact, since its inception in 1988, the OFLC has repeatedly failed to reflect community standards when classifying all explicit erotic films.''

Mr Day said Viva Erotica should be classified R18+ because the film's content did not offend the reasonable adult.

******

Eros Magazine Vol.7 No4 is out now. Subscription information, and a selection of some of the articles can be found here.

******

A couple of reappointments to the Classification and Review Boards.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL 
THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP 
NEWS RELEASE 
25 October 2006 
198/2006 

CLASSIFICATION APPOINTMENTS 

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today announced the appointment of one Senior Classifier to the Classification Board and the reappointment of one member of the Classification Review Board. 

The Classification Board, based in Sydney, is responsible for classifying films, publications and computer games on behalf of the Australian Government, State Governments and Territory Governments. 

The Review Board is responsible for reviewing Classification Board decisions. Members of the boards are chosen to be broadly representative of the Australian community and their decisions are meant to reflect the standards of reasonable adults in the community. 

Mr Jeremy Fenton has been appointed as a full-time senior classifier of the Classification Board. He was previously a full-time member and his appointment will expire in May 2010. 

Mr Rob Shilkin is reappointed to the Review Board for four years and his term will expire in November 2010.

 “It is an asset to both boards that they are able to retain people who have demonstrated their ability to bring experience and consistency in decision making to classification decisions,” Mr Ruddock said. 

Mr Jeremy Fenton 

Mr Fenton, 36, is currently a board member and originally from Dunoon, near Lismore, northern New South Wales. Mr Fenton has been appointed as a Senior Classifier. Before joining the board Mr Fenton was the regional co-ordinator for training services for a non-profit employment and training organisation based in Lismore. He has been a highly effective member of the Classification Board, with a clear understanding of community standards and a strong record of contribution to the work of the board undertaking a lead role in classification related projects. 

Mr Rob Shilkin 

Mr Shilkin, 31, has worked for major law firms in Perth and Melbourne, and is currently employed as a Senior Associate in Sydney. Mr Shilkin was originally appointed to the Classification Review Board as a voice for younger members of the 2 community. He has brought to the Review Board his legal expertise, computer gaming knowledge, younger person's perspective and now his classification experience. 

******

Journalist Gary Hughes wheels out the usual games cause violence studies. So far he has received 250+ comments. Be sure to add your opinion.

Computer violence and our children. News.com.au 26.10.06

What are violent computer games doing to our children? Some of the commenters who took part in yesterday’s debate here on the youths responsible for making a DVD of their abuse of a young intellectually handicapped girl raised the issue of violent games and their influence. So I thought it worth doing a check of recent research published in medical journals looking at violent computer games and children. More than a dozen studies in the past two years have established links between violent games and aggressive, violent behaviour.

******

Flushed with their success at the recent banning of the two Muslim books, the Liberals are on the hunt for more titles to prohibit. Queensland Liberal Senator George Brandis is not happy with a book that portrays Robert Menzies in an unfavourable light.

Call for book ban. News.com.au 23.10.06

A FEDERAL Government senator is demanding the withdrawal of a school library book which paints his political hero and Australia's longest-serving prime minister as a tyrant.

Sir Robert Menzies is listed alongside the likes of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, Cambodian ruler Pol Pot and the deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in the children's reference book 100 Greatest Tyrants, which is used by students at a Mount Isa high school.

Senator George Brandis has slammed the book, by British author Andrew Langley, describing it as offensive and inappropriate for history studies in any Australian school.

"Of course it's absurd," Senator Brandis said.

"It introduces students to the notion that there is a kind of moral equivalence between some of the most evil men in the history of the world and an Australian political leader who has been a beacon of liberal democracy."

The book, published a decade ago, lists Menzies among 100 so-called tyrants, right after the notorious Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong.

Also listed are ruthless conqueror Genghis Khan, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and Chilean ruler Augusto Pinochet.

The 110-page volume is part of the library collection at Mount Isa's Good Shepherd Catholic College, where even the school's principal Bernard Durie has admitted the book is flawed.

"Obviously it's twaddle to suggest Menzies was a tyrant in the same class as Attila the Hun and that crowd," Mr Durie said.

But he has refused to remove the book from the library, describing it as a useful resource for generating debate and critical thinking skills among students.

The Queensland Teachers' Union has backed the school's decision, accusing Senator Brandis of stepping over the line by calling for the book to be withdrawn.

"I think that what he's on about is a dangerous censorship practice," said Lesley McFarlane, the union's assistant secretary for research.

"I thought the days of burning books were gone."

The controversy over the school library book has emerged just as the Federal Government is considering a uniform national curriculum for Australian schools.

Both Prime Minister John Howard and federal Education Minister Julie Bishop have criticised the teaching of history in particular, arguing it should be a stand-alone subject, free of trendy educational fads run by idealogues.

Queensland Teachers' Union president Steve Ryan has accused Senator Brandis of jumping on Mr Howard's bandwagon.

"It's probably a good example of another case of unwanted political interference that is going on in the federal sphere at the moment," Mr Ryan said.

"The federal Education Minister, the Prime Minister and most Liberal politicians seem to want to interfere unnecessarily in the running of schools at the moment.

"It's an ongoing disease."

***

Beattie rejects Ming complaint. News.com.au 24.10.06

That's what he has been labelled after he leapt to the defence of the former Liberal prime minister, who has made it on to the list of the children's reference book 100 Greatest Tyrants. The Queensland senator chanced upon the book during a visit to a Mount Isa high school library, and has called for it to be withdrawn for its "absurd" inclusion.

"It introduces students to the notion that there is a kind of moral equivalence between some of the most evil men in the history of the world and an Australian political leader who has been a beacon of liberal democracy," he said.

Other tyrants included Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. According to the author, Menzies' "most tyrannical act" was his attempt to suppress the Communist party within Australia in 1951.

But Premier Peter Beattie said that, although he did not agree with the notion of Sir Robert as a tyrant, he would not agree with the removal of the book.

"I don't think anyone would view Robert Menzies in that way," Mr Beattie said.

"I would rise to the defence of Robert Menzies immediately – it is an outrageous slur."

He said members of the Liberal party were "beating up" the situation and said it was important to have alternative ideas.

"George has always been a bit of a drama queen about these things," he said.

"There is no shortage of drama in Queensland politics, that's for sure."

Good Shepherd Catholic College principal Bernard Durie, said the book, which is in his school's library, said it generated debate and sparked critical thinking skills.

***

Return to book banning? News.com.au 24.10.06

QUEENSLAND Liberal Senator George Brandis’s call for the banning of a book from a school library depicting Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies as a tyrant has opened a censorship can of worms. Certainly many would find it offensive to have the Menzies name mentioned in the same breath as that Adof Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein. The book, 100 Greatest Tyrants, was written 10 years ago. But is banning the answer? Would our school kids swallow the association hook, line, and sinker, or can we give them some credit for seeing through such an analogy? Could they be given contrasting material instead of a ban?

Or is it a case that drawing such a link between Menzies and people such as Hitler is offensive, and shouldn’t be tolerated. Or is it dangerous when our politicians try and influence (and censor) the content of books in school libraries? And what would Menzies have said about this himself? History shows us that Menzies in pre-World War II days acted to un-ban some political books, but post-war he had two shots at trying to ban the Communist Party, purportedly as a bait to force to Labor a double dissolution and gain control of the Senate. So, it’s over to you.

***

Critics blast tyrant claims. The Gold Coast Bulletin 25.10.06

...principal Bernard Durie refused to remove the book, which he said generated debate and critical thinking skills.

The book defines tyrants as men or women whose ambition or discontent has driven them to desperate and often evil deeds.

"The tyrants who feature in this book help us appreciate how one strong-willed person can change the course of history and impact on the lives of millions," it reads.

According to the author, Menzies' 'most tyrannical act' was his attempt to suppress the Communist party within Australia in 1951.

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie labelled Menzies' inclusion 'outrageous' but said he believed in free speech and accused Senator Brandis of overreacting.

"George has always been a bit of a drama queen about these things," he said.

"The reality is ... I don't think anyone could view Robert Menzies in that way."

A spokeswoman for Queensland Education Minister Rod Welford said yesterday she was not aware of the book being in any state schools, but that did not mean it was not.

She said principals were responsible for the selection of resources in their libraries.

"We are not into censorship or the banning of books and schools should be free to stock what they feel is appropriate."

Mr Copeland said schools should be careful about the information they provided.

"It is a bit of a worry when you have something that, by anyone's judgment, is factually incorrect," he said.

"There is no way you can judge Menzies with anyone in the book. It ties into all the concerns expressed in recent weeks about some of the standards of curriculum in our schools."

He said the school 'would be wise' to take the book out of the library.

Catholic Education Brisbane communications manager Darrin Davies said the 130 Catholic schools across southeast Queensland managed their own libraries.

"We are not aware of the presence of that book in our libraries or not," he said.

"Because they are individual libraries it would have to be a particularly critical matter for us to intervene and because we have not seen this one it would be hard for us to comment."

Mr Durie said Menzies did not rank alongside the likes of Attila the Hun, but said the book also included former FBI chief J Edgar Hoover and American senator Joe McCarthy, who led the US internal crusade against communism.

I am a fan of the TV series Inspector Rex screened on SBS. As you can imagine I was thrilled when the DVD box sets were released but I noticed something strange when watching Season 1.

I already owned a few episodes on commercial VHS tapes I bought in Austria. One of these episodes, 'A Perfect Murder', had clearly been censored on the R4 DVD release with close to 30 seconds removed. It should also be noted that SBS screened a censored version that had close to 15 seconds removed. Why would the broadcast version (at 7.30pm) have less censorship than the M15+ DVD release?

I have just added a clip on You Tube to illustrate the differences between the censored DVD and uncensored VHS releases here.

Mark's You Tube clip is a fantastic example of how the web is making censorship nearly impossible. Hopefully we'll see more examples of this appearing whenever films or TV shows end up butchered at the hands of the censors. So hats off to you Mark. Great work!

Series 1 of INSPECTOR REX was rated M (Moderate Violence, Moderate Sexual References) by the Classification Board in March this year. It looks like Aztec International Entertainment were aiming for a PG rating. The image on the left is the one that appears on most online retailers of the DVD. It looks like a pre-release cover that Aztec sent out. It has the PG rating, but no consumer advice. The image on the right is from the Ezy DVD, and has the correct M-rating.

It does need to be confirmed why Aztec International Entertainment felt it necessary to put out the cut version. It's also kind of depressing to hear that SBS were censoring the program when they screened it.

******

What would an update be without more banned porn. Metro Interactive Australasia has just received an RC-rating for the DVD of CUTE LITTLE ASSES 2.

******

Originally Refused Classification in September, Private Black Label 47: All In has now been censored and rated X18+ (Explicit Sex).

Metro Interactive Australasia have just been awarded an RC rating for the DVD of PURE FILTH 3.

******

September has proved to be the worst month for hardcore in quite a while. The RC rating awarded to Jim Enright's SAVAGE SECURITY makes it the seventh banned title of the month.

******

The Club X store in Shepparton has been approved by the Greater Shepparton Council. Religious Right groups mounted an intense campaign against the store. They were supported by Jeanette Powell, the National Party member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly. Here is a rundown of the debate.

Group to appeal against council adult supermarket decision. ABC New 10.01.05

Opponents of an adult entertainment supermarket proposed for Shepparton in north-east Victoria are set to continue their campaign to stop the development.

Last month the Greater Shepparton City Council granted developer Club X a permit to build the 400 square supermarket, despite almost 200 objections to the application.

A spokesman for the Goulburn Valley Citizens Action Against Porn, Glen Cox, says the group will appeal against the council's decision at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

He says the chances of winning are slim, but the group will not give up easily.

"We understand that the odds are stacked against us," he said.

"We understand that precedence would say that we've got a bit of a battle on our hands but we believe we have some unique aspects and some unique arguments that we can run and we'll look to run those arguments."

***

***

CITY OF GREATER SHEPPARTON WEBSITE
News 07.04.05

Attempts Made by Council to Change Venue for VCAT Hearing on Club X Application to Shepparton

The Mayor of Greater Shepparton wants the community to understand that the Council has made attempts to change the venue to Shepparton for a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) hearing in relation to a planning permit application for a Club X adult sex bookshop in the region.

Cr McCamish said she has written to the Principal Registrar for the Planning and Environment List at VCAT after a ‘Notice of Hearing’ listed the matter for consideration in Melbourne.

“On 16th March 2005, the Council’s solicitors sent a letter to the tribunal supporting the Council’s view that the matter should be heard in Shepparton. Despite this, on 22nd March 2005, a ‘Notice of Hearing’ listed the matter for consideration in Melbourne, with no indication that the tribunal has even considered this letter.”

“This is clearly an issue that affects many members of the Greater Shepparton community. If the hearing is to be held in Melbourne, many of these people may not be able to attend or provide their viewpoint because of the additional time and travel requirements,” the Mayor said.

“Due to the apparent lack of response or consideration that there is a need to hold the meeting in Shepparton, the Council is now pursuing further the issue with VCAT in an attempt to have the venue changed,” she said.

In December 2004, the Council approved a planning permit application for an adult sex bookshop at 2-4 Carroll Road, Shepparton East. At the time, the Council expressed its frustration at the fact that – within current State and Federal Government legislation in relation to censorship and planning – Councils must address such applications purely on their planning merits and cannot take into consideration issues such as morality.

The Goulburn Valley Community Action Against Pornography group has lodged an application for review with VCAT appealing the Council’s decision. An appeal has also been lodged by the permit applicant opposing some of the conditions that had been placed within the permit.

***

Showtime, Showtime Greats, Movie One, Movie Extra, and Movie Greats are covered by the Subscription Broadcast Television Code. This states:

Note: It is a condition of licence that: X-rated programs and programs classified ‘RC’ (refused classification) by the Office of Film and Literature Classification will not be broadcast by Licensees. Programs classified as "R" will not be broadcast by Licensees until Parliament has approved the broadcast of such programs on subscription television.

World Movies, Adults Only, Adults Only Select are covered by the Subscription Narrowcast Television Code. This states:

3.3 Programs that are either classified X or are refused classification (or which would be if presented for classification) will not be broadcast by television subscription narrowcasters. 

3.4 Material rated R will be restricted to access by those with appropriate disabling devices.

In the case of World Movies it was previously a stand-alone channel that you could receive for an extra monthly fee. Now, with Foxtel Digital it is part of the 'My Movies' package that contains Showtime, Showtime Greats, and TCM.

With Optus it is part of the 'Movies' package that contains Movie One, Movie Extra, and Movie Greats.

The consequence of this that when Movie One screened the R18+ rated KILL BILL it would have had to have been censored to MA15+. Not that they would have told the viewer that.

World Movies could have screened it uncut, as they have done with other R18+ rated titles such as IRREVERSIBLE, ROMANCE, and IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES.

All channels have the same disabling devices that allow for certain classifications to be banned altogether. A block on R18+ content on World Movies results in a request for a pin number before the film can be seen. It works for whole channels as well. This is especially useful if you never wish to stumble across the Australian Christian Channel again.

The Adult channels on Pay-TV all carry heavily censored R18+ rated porn. It's doubtful that it will happen, but it is worth voicing your support for X18+ to be allowed on these channels.

Closing date for submissions is October 13th.

The following is taken from the ASTRA website, and gives an overview of the current situation. 

A History of Regulatory Hurdles
Ban on R rated material - the question of whether Subscription TV can show R rated material – with appropriate disabling devices is yet to be resolved. The Broadcasting Services Act (BSA) has been amended (twice) to deal with this & other related classification issues. R is allowed on narrowcast television services (BSA amended to ban X).

Details can be found here.

www.astra.org.au

Under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, each broadcasting sector is required to develop Codes of practice and provide an opportunity for public comment. There are four ASTRA Codes of practice to be reviewed which cover subscription television & radio and open narrowcasting television.

Your comment is invited on the Codes and any proposed changes.

Submissions should reach ASTRA by 5.00pm Friday 13 October 2006.

The Codes for which comment is sought are:

Subscription Broadcast Television Code
Open Narrowcast Television Code
Subscription Narrowcast Television Code
Subscripton Narrowcast Radio Code

******

The previously banned IONIE LUVCOXXX 15: I ONLY LOVE SLIPPERY SLUTS has now been rated X18+ (Explicit Sex). Calvista submitted a censored version after being hit with an RC rating.

Not so lucky for Calvista was Private Black Label 47: All In. It was last week Refused Classification.

This was joined by I Was Tight Yesterday 05. Metro Interactive Australasia were the unlucky recipients of the RC rating.

******

According to Google Trends, Brisbane is the porn capital of Australia.

Australia's porn capital. The Sunday Mail 24.09.06

Brisbane earned the unwelcome tag after research found residents type "porn" into their PCs more than people in any other capital city in the country. In fact, Brisbane, with 1.7 million people, is ranked the second-highest city in the world – beaten only by Birmingham, a city of 1 million people in Britain.

The Google Trends site produced the global porn table by dividing the total number of search queries from each city by the number of specific "porn" searches.

Sex trade association Eros said Queenslanders had turned to the internet because the State Government banned sex shops from selling X-rated DVDs and magazines.

"In every other state it's legal for adult shops to sell X-rated magazines, but the Queensland Government is completely out of touch," Eros executive officer Fiona Patten said.

"In addition, Brisbane people are exposed to more sun than in other cities – which causes greater sexual arousal and fuels the need for porn."

Church leaders and family campaigners are outraged at the findings and warned about the dangers of people accessing sexually explicit material.

"Porn has a negative impact on families and devalues everyone," Australian Family Association state secretary Angelique Barr told The Sunday Mail.

"We would like to see very limited access through filtering of porn websites by the internet service providers, particularly for young teenagers."

Ray Campbell, spokesman for the Catholic diocese of Brisbane, said the best sex was to be had within a marriage.

"Porn encourages people to see the body as an instrument and is degrading," he said.

"But unfortunately people quite easily become addicted to it and it has a detrimental effect on their sex life with their husband or wife."

As well as internet popularity, the number of Queensland sex shops has risen to 106 in recent years, making them more common than Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets.

Figures show 13 per cent of Brisbane adults are on the X- rated video mailing lists in Canberra – the highest percentage in Australia.

Eros estimates that three in four Queensland households are regular buyers of porn.

Research suggests that high exposure to porn may be linked to abuse of women.

But Ms Patten said: "Oppression of the sex industry does far more harm to society than expression does. Statistics show a lot of sex offenders had limited sex education."

A spokesman for Fair Trading Minister Margaret Keech said there would be no changes to the laws on the sale of X-rated material in Queensland.

******

Dr James McConvill has an interesting article on the effects of pornography on the sexual crime rate.

Pornography has its benefits. Online Opinion 29.09.06

Our community is safer and more peaceful thanks to internet pornography. This may sound counter-intuitive, but there are recent figures to back up the argument.

In a paper just released in the United States titled Porn Up, Rape Down, Northwestern University Law Professor Anthony D’amato crunches the numbers to reach the conclusion:

The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85 per cent in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. The Nixon and Reagan Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence. The reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence.

Professor D’amato explains that the Internet is now the predominant way in which people access pornography, noting that purveyors of internet pornography in the US earn an annual income exceeding the total of the major media networks in the country.

The main point that Professor D’amato highlights in his paper is that there is a positive correlation between the recent explosion of household internet access in the US, and a decline in incidents of rape (measured in different ways, including police reports and survey interviews) during the same period.

According to Professor D’amato, the four US states with the lowest internet access had the highest increase in rape incidents (53 per cent increase) between 1980 and 2004, whereas the four states with the highest internet access, experienced the largest decrease in rape incidents (27 per cent decrease).

******

The Australian Christian Lobby have just had their annual conference. Guess what, they want more censorship.

Calls for overhaul of children's film content. The Age 26.09.06

NOT content with a review of television and junk food advertising guidelines, Christian groups and children's advocates are calling for an overhaul of children's film content as well as R-rated material.

Questions about the content of Finding Nemo and the Cat in the Hat and R-rated movies has prompted the Australian Christian Lobby to approach every state government in a bid to put film classification guidelines on the agenda of the nation's meeting of attorneys-general in March.

Groups such as the lobby, the Festival of Light and the Australian Family Association are vocal critics of the film classification regime, claiming that graphic sexual violence is creeping into R-rated material in the name of artistic merit.

******

Don't feel helpless in the struggle against these people. Fight back, and stay informed. Checkout the BEWARE OF THE GOD site that has just been added to the links page. 

******

The ACMA have found that a fuckwit breached the standards of decency.

Australian Government 
Australian Communications and Media Authority
28 September 2006
MR 104/2006

ACMA finds swearing by Sam Newman during 3MMM Saturday Football breached standards of decency

The Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that the licensee of 3MMM Melbourne, Triple M Melbourne Pty Ltd, breached the commercial radio code of practice by failing to meet contemporary standards of decency, having regard to the likely composition of its audience.

The breach occurred in the Saturday Football program broadcast on 6 May 2006.

During the talk-back section of the broadcast, Mr Sam Newman described a caller who had criticised his comments on a match as a ‘f ----wit’.

Triple M has advised ACMA that Mr Newman was suspended from the air immediately and has not returned to the program. He and the producer of the program have undergone training in the commercial radio code of practice and the licensee has introduced six-monthly staff training on the code.

ACMA considers that these actions address the compliance issues raised by this investigation but will nonetheless continue to monitor the licensee’s performance in relation to the relevant code provision to satisfy itself that this was an isolated incident.

A copy of the investigation report is available on the ACMA website

Media contact: Donald Robertson, ACMA Media Manager on (02) 9334 7980.

Backgrounder

ACMA conducts various types of investigations under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the Act). Investigations under Part 11 of the Act are conducted in response to complaints received by ACMA relating to a possible breach by:

a licensed broadcaster of the Act, the regulations, a licence condition, a class licence or a code of practice; or the ABC or SBS of a code of practice. If a person wishes to complain about something of concern they have seen or heard on a program broadcast by a radio or TV station, and the matter is covered by a code of practice, the person must, by law, first make a written complaint to the station.

However, if a complaint relates to a matter covered by a licence condition, the person can complain directly to ACMA and need not complain to the station first.

There is a different code of practice for each broadcasting sector, and each code of practice contains a section that explains the complaints process that applies to that sector.

As some codes impose time limits for complaints, it is advisable that persons who wish to make a complaint write to the radio or TV station as soon as possible. For instance, the code of practice that applies to commercial television broadcasters enables them to decide to not respond in writing to complaints that are made more than 30 days after the date of broadcast.

When making a complaint to ACMA, persons must provide a copy of their complaint to the station, a copy of the station’s reply if this has been received, and any other relevant correspondence with the station. ACMA takes all complaints seriously (except for those that are frivolous or vexatious or not made in good faith) and acknowledges in writing all complaints.

For qualifying complaints, ACMA considers the information provided and offers the relevant station an opportunity to provide its perspectives. When all relevant information is available, ACMA assesses the complaint against the relevant licence condition or code of practice. When an investigation is completed, ACMA is required to notify a complainant of the results of an investigation under Part 11 of the Act. The form this notification is to take is not specified in the Act – sometimes it is in the form of a letter, but more usually it takes the form of a more formal investigation report, which is provided to both the complainant and the licensee concerned.

Generally, personal or private information provided in a complaint, including name and address details, are not disclosed to the licensee concerned if it is a licence condition matter. However, as code complaints are first made to a licensee, code complaints are usually made available to the licensee concerned. ACMA’s usual practice is to not provide personal or private information in an investigation report.

Under the Act, ACMA has discretion whether or not to publish the report of an investigation conducted under Part 11 of the Act. ACMA is not required to publish an investigation report if publication would disclose matter of a confidential character or likely to prejudice the fair trial of a person. If ACMA intends to publish an investigation report that may adversely affect the interests of a person, ACMA must give the person an opportunity to make representations in relation to the matter.

Australian Government 
Australian Communications and Media Authority
Investigation Report No. 1717 
File No. 2006/1258 
Licensee Triple M Melbourne Pty Ltd 
Station 3MMM 105.1 
Type of Service Commercial Radio Broadcasting Service 
Name of Program Saturday Football 
Date/s of Broadcast 6 May 2006 
Relevant Legislation/Code Clause 1.5(a) of the Commercial Radio Code of Practice 2004 

Investigation conclusion 

The licensee of 3MMM, Triple M Melbourne Pty Ltd, in relation to the Saturday Football program broadcast on 6 May 2006: 

• breached clause 1.5 (a) of the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice, as the program did not meet contemporary standards of decency having regard to the likely characteristics of the audience of the licensee’s service. 

The Complaint 

On 19 June 2006, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint that, during a broadcast by the licensee of the program Saturday Football on 6 May 2006, one of its presenters, Sam Newman, referred to a caller to the program as a ‘fuckwit’. 

The complaint has been investigated as a possible breach of clause 1.5(a) of the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice 2004 (the Code). 

The Program 

The Saturday Football program is broadcast each Saturday afternoon during the football season. Mr Newman is one of the eight presenters used on the program, according to the Triple M website. 

The website states of Mr Newman: 

In the commentary box Sam delivers expert observations of the match in play, topped with lashings of acerbic wit and razor sharp retorts that are directed with precision accuracy at anyone who dares to challenge him on the game that has made him a legend and a star. 

Assessment 

In investigating the complaint ACMA has taken into account the letter from the complainant, written submissions from the licensee and a compact disc of the broadcast provided by the licensee. The relevant exchange between Mr Newman and the caller was: 

Caller: … crappy, little, bitchy moaning comments, ooh they don’t do this. Start to put it away (unclear), the game’s changed. Jump off the radio, jump into a nursing home and just leave it alone. 

Newman: Were you here today? 

Caller: Yes I was 

Newman: You’re a fuckwit. 

Issue: Did the licensee broadcast language which did not ‘meet contemporary standards of decency, having regard to the likely characteristics of the audience of the licensee’s service’? 

Clause 1.5(a) of the Code states: 

All program content must meet contemporary standards of decency, having regard to the likely characteristics of the audience of the licensee’s service. 

Complainant’s submission 

The complainant stated 

On Saturday 6 May, Triple M was having their football show before the game. A caller rang up, as was asked to do, after expressing an opinion, Sam Newman called him a f*ckwit. The only punishment … Mr Newman received was that the station “rested” him for a couple of weeks and now he doesn’t call the footy anymore, he is still employed by MMM though. I think that is a totally inadequate punishment. I have young kids that listen to that program. 

Licensee’s submissions 

On 20 July 2006, in relation to the incident complained of, the licensee made the following points: 

1. Mr Newman remained on-air for the remainder of the program but did not make any further comments; 

2. the language used was ‘unsuitable for broadcast’; 

3. the licensee ‘responded very swiftly to this matter when dealing with Mr Newman by suspending him from his on-air duties for this program immediately’; and 

4. the program ‘encourages opinion, debate and discussion amongst the hosts themselves and with the listeners … it does have an audience that is very aware of (Mr Newman’s) temperament and is used to lively debate and commentary that can get heated and edgy at times, that is part of the entertainment, and is expected by most listeners’. 

Finding 

The delegate is of the view that in the Saturday Football program broadcast on 6 May 2006, the licensee broadcast language which did not ‘meet contemporary standards of decency, having regard to the likely characteristics of the audience of the licensee’s service’, in breach of clause 1.5(a) of the Code. 

Reasons 

There are two elements that must be considered to determine whether the program content is in breach of clause 1.5(a) of the Code: 

• the ‘likely characteristics’ of 3MMM’s audience, and 

 • whether, having regard to the audience characteristics, the content of Saturday Football program broadcast on 6 May 2006 met ‘contemporary standards of decency’. 

The likely characteristics of the audience 

Clause 1.5(a) specifies that it is the characteristics of the audience of 3MMM generally which must be considered, rather than the characteristics of the audience of the Saturday Football program. 

The Nielsen Media Report on the Melbourne radio listening audience for the period 12 February to 29 April 2006 indicates that 3MMM has the highest share of the 25-39 year old age group (18.2 per cent). It also has the third highest shares of the 10-17 (14 per cent), 18-24 (16.3 per cent) and 40-54 (12.5 per cent) year old age groups. 

The licensee has not made any submissions about the ‘likely characteristics’ of its audience. However, in its response to the complaint the licensee stated: 

With (Mr Newman) as a regular participant of the Program, it does have an audience that is very aware of his temperament and is used to lively debate and commentary that can get heated and edgy at times, that is part of the entertainment, and is expected by most listeners. 

The delegate is satisfied that likely characteristics of the 3MMM audience would be listeners aged between 10 and 39, in particular, the 18-39 age group. 

Whether the program content met contemporary standards of decency, having regard to the characteristics of the audience 

While the Saturday Football program encourages ‘lively debate’ and can get ‘heated’ and ‘edgy’, the licensee has also acknowledged that the language used was ‘unsuitable for broadcast’. As such, the licensee has accepted that the language used did not meet contemporary standards of decency, having regard to the characteristics of the audience. 

Action taken by the Licensee In response to the incident the licensee advised that it: 

1. suspended Mr Newman, on 8 May 2006, from participating in the program ‘as a consequence of the language he used on-air. (He) was severely reprimanded … and he remains suspended’ as at 11 September 2006; 

2. has had Mr Newman and the producer of the program undergo training in the Codes with the licensee’s General Counsel on 3 July 2006, ‘to remind them of their obligations under the Codes’; 

3. made them aware of ACMA’s investigation; and 

 4. currently undertakes 6 monthly staff training on the Code. The licensee stated that Mr Newman and the producer ‘have a very clear understanding that this must never happen again and that it was a completely inappropriate comment to make to the listener, notwithstanding the language and comments used by the listener’. 

The delegate considers that these actions address the compliance issues raised by the investigation and will continue to monitor the licensee’s performance in this regard. 

Decision 

I, Kathleen Silleri, Acting Executive Manager, Codes Content and Education Branch, being the appropriate delegated officer of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, determine, for the above reason, that the licensee of 3MMM, Triple M Melbourne Pty Ltd, in relation to the Saturday Football program broadcast on 6 May 2006: 

• breached clause 1.5 (a) of the Commercial Radio Codes of Practice, as the program did not meet contemporary standards of decency having regard to the likely characteristics of the audience of the licensee’s service.