Salo - 120 Days of Sodom | Refused-Classification.com

Salo - 120 Days of Sodom

Dir Pier Paolo Pasolini / 1975 / Italy

1976: Banned

In March 1976, as PASOLINI'S 120 DAYS OF SODOM, a 3154m (115m 17s) was banned for reasons of 'indecency'. An appeal to the Review Board in failed in April 1976 when they upheld the decision of the Film Censorship Board.

***

1992: Banned

On December 9th 1992, as SALO O LE 120 GIORNATE DI SODOMA, a 116min (35mm) was banned again. Premium Films were the applicant.

Here is how the Censorship Board described the reasons. Note that a minority thought that it deserverd an R18+.

"Pasolini's 120 Days of Sodom, also known as Salo, uses the narrative structure of the Marquis De Sade's 120 Days of Sodom, to present a portrait of human degradation which serves as a metaphor for fascism. It was first considered by the Board during 1976 when the film was refused by a narrow majority, a decision subsequently upheld by the then Films Board of Review. In 1992 the Board was again divided , with a majority of seven of the eleven member Board voting to refuse the film while four recommended a Restricted classification. The majority considered a combination of visual and conceptual elements to be indecent. It thought that the reasonable adult person would find the film's intellectual thesis neither clear nor compelling and would therefore, be more inclined to perceive the general character of this version of the film in pornographic, voyeuristic and exploitative terms. The minority considered the film neither exploitative nor voyeuristic, but warranted a Restricted classification as it was likely to be offensive to some sections of the adult community."

OFLC and Film and Literature Board of Review-Report on Activities 1992-93

***

1993: R18+

With the film still banned, an appeal was made to the Films Board of Review, here is their response.

"The Board of Review considered an appeal by Premium films against the decision of the Film Censorship Board to refuse registration to the film Salo O le 120 Giornate di Sodoma / Pasolini's 120 Days of Sodom (hereinafter referred to as Salo.

The film was completed by Pier Palo Pasolini shortly before his death in 1975.It depicts the sexual degradation and torture by four high-ranking functionaries of a group of young prisoners, teenagers of both sexes, who have been rounded up by the Fascist authorities during the closing stages of the war. The film has had a long history of scrutiny by censorship bodies in many countries, and has several times been rejected, in different versions and formats, for screening in Australia. The present appeal was in respect of the original Italian-language version, subtitled in English for cinema exhibition only.

The film is generally considered to be a metaphor for fascism and oppression and a critique of capitalist exploitation. According to Mr John Cerrone, representing the appellants, Premium Films, it has been approved for showing in 16 countries, including France (where it was first shown), Britain and the United States. The Board of Review considered a detailed response by Mr Cerrone to the report of the Film Censorship Board on its most recent decision. In a brief presentation to the Board, Mr Cerrone contended that Salo, if approved for restricted exhibition, would be seen, in the main, only by serious and generally older film goers and film enthusiasts in arthouse cinemas, and would be exhibited with any appropriate warning or advisory message which the Board might require.

Members of the Board of Review, while endeavouring to assess the film solely by references to its intrinsic character and without regard to its provenance or the notoriety of its director, were nevertheless mindful of the fact that Pasolini was among the leading filmmakers of his time, and that Salo is considered by many to be one of his most powerful and important works.

Notwithstanding the extreme character of much of its imagery, and intense feeling of horror and revulsion it might arouse in some audiences, it seemed to the Board appropriate that decisions taken as long as seventeen years ago on a flim of undisputed importance should be looked at afresh, in an atmosphere unclouded by indignation and controversy attending the film's initial screenings abroad. Salo presents us with the most stringent test to date of the basic principle that adults in a free society should be at liberty to see what they wish. That principle, endorsed as part of the comprehensive revised guidelines by Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers in 1979, we have taken to be fundamental.

Approaching Salo from this standpoint, we agreed that its depictions, while frequently shocking, were integral to the filmmaker's purposes, and therefore not gratuitous; nor were they in any way erotic or titillating. We noted the assurance of the distributor that the film, if approved with an 'R' classification would be exhibited by them only in smaller, selected cinemas and advertised with appropriate discretion. We noted finally the comments of the minority of the Film Censorship Board, who concluded that the film:

"Whilst certainly challenging from a classification standpoint, could nonetheless be accommodated in the Restricted category, defined as this is to encompass material considered possibly offensive to some sections of the adult community. The minority argued that although the film deals with indecent or obscene phenomena, it does so in a manner which is neither indecent nor obscene in itself when viewed in the context of a film of merit where even the most problematic of elements clearly serve the director's metaphorical purpose. For the minority the film is neither exploitative nor voyeuristic, but a powerfully realised political statement on the violation of innocence and freedom"

With this opinion the Board of Review, after much careful consideration, concurred and accordingly determined that Salo should be registered and classified 'R' ( for restricted exhibition), subject to the condition that the advertising material prepared for the film by Premium Films be submitted to the Review Board for approval.

We directed that the following consumer advice apply to the film:' Disturbing adult concepts and high level violence and sex'. 13 January 1993"

OFLC and Film and Literature Board of Review-Report on Activities 1992-93

With it now grated an R18+ rating Premium Films went on to give it a Theatrical release during 1993. No video release followed.

***

1993: SALO Ban Petition Presented in Queensland

Queensland Legislative Assembly
3717
24 August 1993
TUESDAY, 24 AUGUST 1993

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Movie, Salo From Mr Szczerbanik (143 signatories) praying for urgent action to ban the movie Salo from Queensland

***

1993: Julian McGauran SALO petitions 1 to 3

Petition: Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman
Date 31 August, 1993
Database Senate Hansard
Presenter MCGAURAN
Page 658
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Petition

Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman

Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) —by leave—I present to the Senate the following petitions, similar in wording, from 16 and 20 citizens, which are not in conformity with the standing orders as they are not in the correct form:

To the Honourable the Chairman and members of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

THE PETITION OF THE UNDERSIGNED SHOWS:

We the undersigned citizens respectfully request the Committee, in its capacity as overseer of the Film Review Board, to replace the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Evan Williams, on the grounds that he has lost touch with community standards, with a more responsible community representative.

To the Honourable the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The petition of the undersigned shows that the signatories request you to exercise your authority to replace the Chairman of the Film and Literature Board of Review, Mr. Evan Williams, with a more responsible and representative member of the community, on the grounds that he has lost touch with community standards, as evidenced by his support for the release of the film `Salo'.

Senator Robert Ray—Mr President, I raise a point of order. We seem to be getting back to a stage of reading out petitions in this place when people send them in incorrectly, which gives them an advantage over those who send them in correctly. I wonder whether you might look at that and take it up with the Procedure Committee.

The PRESIDENT—I must admit that on one of the advices I received there were some extra words added today. I will look at that.

Petition: Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman
Date 02 September, 1993
Database Senate Hansard
Presenter MCGAURAN
Page 886
Proof No Source Senate
Type Petition

Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) —by leave—I present to the Senate the following petition, from 137 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form:

To the Honourable the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Petition: Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman|
Date 02 September, 1993
Database Senate Hansard
Presenter MCGAURAN
Page 886
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Petition

Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman Senator

McGAURAN (Victoria) —by leave—I present to the Senate the following petition, from 83 citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form:

To the Honourable Attorney-General.

The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House of the release of the previously banned film `Salo', allowing it for public viewing.

Your petitioners request the House to exercise your Authority to replace the Chairman of the Film and Literature Board of Review, Mr. Evan Williams on the grounds that he has lost touch with Community Standards.

***

1993: Julian McGauran on SALO'S R18+

ADJOURNMENT: Salo
Date 06 September, 1993
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker McGauran Sen J.J.J. (NP, VIC, Opposition)
Page 982
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Speech
Context Adjournment

Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) (10.30 p.m.) —This evening I wish to relate my comments to the decision of the Film and Literature Board of Review to release the movie Salo. The movie Salo is presently showing in major capital cities of Australia and represents a watershed in censorship laws in this country. My concern is as much against the clear breach of the censorship laws and the unequivocal instructions of the Commonwealth, state and territory censorship ministers for tighter application of those guidelines as it is against the movie itself.

The movie Salo, made in 1976, banned in this country for some 17 years, has been released in mainstream theatres with no more than a lowly R rating and therefore there is no barrier to its release on home video. The story-line begins with the kidnap of 16 adolescents in an Italian village, eight of each sex. For the remainder of the film they are subjected to every form of violent sexual humiliation and torture before being mass slaughtered in a bizarre fashion.

I make reference to the hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies in Sydney on Thursday, 5 August 1993 to try to encapsulate the depths and darkness of the movie Salo. The committee transcript reads that the movie:

Contains constant nudity, masturbation, forced sodomy, forced urolagnia, coprophagous, humiliation and degradation, anilingus, suicide, candlewax burns to breasts and male genitalia, a man's tongue cut off, an eye explicitly gouged out with a knife, a woman partially scalped, a boy's nipples branded with a hot iron, being forced to eat excreta, torture and killing during the "Cycle of Blood" canto. Naked male and female youths forced to behave as animals going on all fours to beg for food—eventually betraying their fellows in an attempt to survive, hanging, whipping, accompanied by raconteurs' stories based on offensive, fetishes and paedophilia, a woman's verbal accounts of sex experiences as a child and of matricide, live rat forced into a girl's vagina, whilst various adults engage in sexual acts.

The movie Salo has been condemned outright by every film critic of any note. The most notable critiques came from Neil Jillet of the Age on 8 July 1993—he described the film as `vile' and a `treat for sadists and psychopaths'—and Marion Groves from the Sun-Herald who asked why the film and literature review board was so determined to provide suitable entertainment for Mr Baldy, Mr Stinky and Mr Cruel, Melbourne's notorious child molesters and murderers.

Moreover, the Victorian police headed by the office of the deputy commissioner, the head of the spectrum task force overseeing the investigations into Mr Cruel, the head of the rape squad, the head of the gaming and vice squad and the department's chief serial crime expert were instructed to see the movie and to report on the movie to the highest command. In my casual conversation with some of those who attended the movie, they told me that, following the movie, these men of the police force who had experienced many hardened situations had to take a walk down by the Yarra just to get their breath.

In a statement to the community standards committee, the conclusions of the police were affirmed by Mr Reaburn from the Attorney-General's Department when he said:

One has to doubt how it will affect the community in the long run. How many of the young men trooping in to see the film at various Twin Cinemas in our capital cities are aware of the allegorical considerations?

The community has also protested against the movie by way of letters, petitions and phone calls—the volume of which has been exceptionally large. At a meeting of the Senate select committee on community standards in Canberra on Friday, 20 August, Mr Reaburn from the Attorney-General's Department confirmed that a great many members of the community had protested directly to the Attorney-General's Department.

It is then legitimate to ask: according to whom, and on what criteria, was the movie Salo released into Australian society? The Film and Literature Board of Review, the body that is the final arbitrator of the film's classification and release, is responsible. Its chairman, Mr Evan Williams, is therefore the responsible person. Mr Williams has publicly and before the Senate community standards committee vigorously defended his decision and claims that the release of the movie can be justified on four grounds.

Those grounds are, firstly, that the movie is of artistic merit. According to Mr Williams, `It is the task of the artist, at least occasionally, to shock the old and complacent'. The second ground is that the movie would be shown only in art-house theatres, a proviso which cannot be enforced and is not mentioned in the guidelines as a relevant criteria. The third ground is that adults in a free society ought to be allowed to see whatever they like. Mr Williams confirmed his view in a letter to the Age on 15 November saying that:

. . . to deny their right to do so, I believe, is to champion a view of censorship now largely discredited in Australia.

The fourth ground for Mr Williams releasing this movie Salo may be found in his article in the Australian on 21 May 1993 when he said, `Quite simply, we thought it was a good film'.

It is my view that the position of Mr Williams as Chairman of the Film and Literature Board of Review is no longer tenable, and he should be dismissed. I take this view on four counts: firstly, there has been a clear breach of the guidelines for the classification of films and videotapes which he was obliged in law to apply. Under the refused classification section of the guidelines, subsection (b) has been breached. It reads:

. . . any film which includes unduly detailed and/or relished acts of extreme violence or cruelty; explicit or unjustifiable depictions of sexual violence against non-consenting persons, will be refused classification.

Mr Williams himself has stated that the adolescents suffer `sexual torment and sadistic humiliation of an extreme kind'. Secondly, Mr Williams was in breach of the principle found in the preamble of the classification guidelines which reads:

. . . community has the right to ban material considered likely to endanger public health or safety; or to offend accepted standards of public decency.

Thirdly, he was in breach of the clear direction from the June 1988 Commonwealth, state and territory censorship ministers meeting in Darwin requesting that the Chairman of the Film and Literature Board of Review apply tighter restrictions to sexually violent films in the M and R categories. Fourthly, in my own State of Victoria, section 8(2)(c) of the Classification of Films and Publications Act 1990 provides:

. . . that a censor must refuse to classify a film that depicts a child (whether engaged in sexual activity or otherwise) who is, or who is apparently, under the age of 16 years in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person.

Not only do I believe that Mr Williams' position is no longer tenable because of the flagrant breaches of the above but also I question his competence to be a judge of community standards. This belief was confirmed by the incredible assertion by Mr Williams that he could see no evidence to link a level of sexually violent crime to sexually violent movies. His opinion clearly shows poor judgment and it could be supported only by a very small minority of people in society.

It is clear from the committee hearings that community views were never a touchstone in the film and literature review board's decision making process; rather, the artistic value of the movie and the freedom of expression of the director overrode community standards. Mr Williams is employed to apply the law, not to make it up. These boards are made up of appointed officials; they are not elected. For this reason they cannot be allowed to roam free, interpreting the guidelines as they might, inventing new criteria and then being unaccountable to the community and protected from criticism by government departments.

As public representatives, we are here to represent the standards of the community as well as the public sentiment towards issues that arise from time to time. As a public servant, Mr Williams is obliged in law to follow the guidelines which are laid down by the parliament. He and other members of the board are not at liberty to substitute their own philosophical judgments, as they have done. I therefore put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and the other senators present in the chamber, to join me in calling for the dismissal of Mr Evan Williams, since the only appropriate signal we can make to the community is that we will not tolerate breaches of the guidelines which place the safety of our citizens in peril. This will no doubt send a clear signal to a worried community that any member or chairperson of the film and literature review board is accountable for his or her actions. I agree with Mr Williams on one point, when he said:

Salo presents us with the most stringent test to date.

I say clearly that the release of Salo was a deliberate challenge to the community standards and, therefore, a watershed in this country's censorship laws. To leave the matter undisputed would signal a collapse of Australia's censorship laws. I finish by quoting the last paragraph in today's Age editorial, Monday 6 September, which I believe clearly relates to the release of the movie Salo:

The unacceptable alternative is simply to wish our children luck as they ride the pendulum of censorship towards the outer limits.

***

1993: Julian McGauran's SALO Petition Number 4

Petition: Film and Literature Board of Review

Date 07 September, 1993
Database Senate Hansard
Presenter MCGAURAN
Page 1008
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Petition

Film and Literature Board of Review

Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) —by leave—I present to the Senate the following petition, from 13 citizens, which is not in conformity with the standing orders as it is not in the correct form:

To the Honourable the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The petition of the undersigned shows that the signatories request you to exercise your authority to replace the Chairman of the Film and Literature Board of Review, Mr Evan Williams, with a more responsible and representative member of the community, on the grounds that he has lost touch with community standards, as evidenced by his support for the release of the film `Salo'.

***

1993: F* Nile on SALO**

NSW Legislative Council
7th September 1993
"Salo" Film Classification
Speakers - Nile Reverend The Hon Fred
Business - Adjournment

"SALO" FILM CLASSIFICATION

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [5.8]: The matter I wish to bring to the attention of the House concerns a controversial decision made by the Commonwealth Film and Literature Board of Review in regard to a film called "Salo". Like many members in this House and those in other parliaments of Australia, we were shocked when the film was passed for screening in Australia after its prohibition for 17 years. It was correctly banned by the Commonwealth Film and Literature Classification Board, which is not known for its rigid decisions. That ban should have been upheld. However, the Commonwealth Film and Literature Board of Review overruled its decision. The film is now being shown in various theatres around Australia, including one in Paddington.

Call to Australia believes the original decision of the Commonwealth Film and Literature Classification Board was correct. "Salo" has been described as a film involving a great deal of violence and degradation, particularly of teenage girls. Even Mr Evan Williams, Chairman of the Commonwealth Film and Literature Board of Review, which overthrew the decision of the classification board, is quoted in the Australian of 21st May as saying that "Salo" contains "scenes of concentrated foulness, sexual torment and sadistic humiliation of an extreme kind" - in relation mainly to the degradation of teenage girls. The film promotes, by implication, child pornography because the press articles show naked "Salo" actors, arguably under the age of sixteen years. We believe that this film, by its contents, through the display of such violence is but another step in the desensitisation process that will entice many who view the film to become involved in sexual violence themselves.

The producer of "Salo" - apparently a sexually perverse person - finally killed himself. Why should the perversion of a sick mind be allowed to be fed into the minds of Australian adults and children if this film is eventually allowed to be screened, even in an edited version on television? We believe the film was produced as a deliberate attack on attempts to censor such pornographic films. Other comments about the film include those by Neil Gillet, the film reviewer of the Melbourne Age, who described "Salo" as:

. . . a vile film. It is a treat for sadists and other psychopaths . . . The shock of watching this film numbs the mind to anything but the violence, Pasolini's apparent relish in presenting it and conjecture about how he persuaded, or coerced, the cast - especially the younger actors - into following the director's orders.

Those younger actors, mainly teenage girls, were degraded in the production of the film, which will have similar impact on viewers. Mr Keith Connolly, the Deputy Chairman of the Board of Review that released the film, considered "Salo" to be "an utterly appalling chronicle of human depravity". Nevertheless, he voted to release it for exhibition with an R rating, and later revealed that the vote by the review board was unanimous. That revelation makes me wonder whether the review board should not be sacked and other persons appointed, given that its members can make such statements yet be unanimous in overthrowing the decision of the classification board that the film should not have been shown. "Salo" can now be seen by anyone over 17 years of age. The whole point is that the review board was stating what is described as a classic liberal position - of philosophy, not of politics - that anyone over the age of 17 should be perfectly free to witness any film he or she wishes and - presumably, one might add - free to read any book or to undergo any experience.

***

1993: Senate Community Standards Report

COMMITTEES: Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies Committee: Report
Date 28 October, 1993
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Reynolds Sen The Hon M. (ALP, QLD, Government)
Page 2772
Proof No
Source Senate
Stage Report
Type Speech
Context Committee

Senator REYNOLDS (Queensland) (4.01 p.m.) —I present a report of the Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technologies on video and computer games and classification issues.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator REYNOLDS —by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY STANDARDS RELEVANT TO THE SUPPLY OF SERVICES UTILISING ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES

REPORT ON VIDEO AND COMPUTER GAMES AND CLASSIFICATION ISSUES OCTOBER 1993

TABLING STATEMENT BY COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON, SENATOR MARGARET REYNOLDS

In the report tabled today, the Committee has examined two issues: the availability of unclassified video and computer games and the system for the classification of films and videos.

In relation to video and computer games, the Committee's concerns are directed at the proliferation in Australia of games with unacceptable levels of violence or sexual activities as their themes. The Committee's concerns are shared by the Standing Committee of Censorship Ministers, the meeting of Federal, State and Territory ministers with censorship responsibility. At their meeting in June 1993 the Ministers announced that they had agreed to bring video and computer games under the control of the national censorship system, and requested the Chief Censor and State and Territory officials to formulate a scheme for regulation to be presented at the Minister's next meeting, to be held on 4 and 5 November. The Committee has expedited its inquiry in order to bring down this interim report for the consideration of the Censorship Ministers at that meeting.

The Committee's recommendations envisage a scheme of regulation of the content of video and computer games with the classification set by the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The Committee concluded that the absence of classification of such games, and reliance only on industry self-regulation, threatens to undermine the community's efforts to regulate the availability of graphically violent and sexual material in games to minors.

The Committee will monitor the decisions of the meeting of Censorship Ministers, and will continue to take evidence in relation to video and computer games, and will be in a position to report to the Senate on progress.

The Committee's concern about the system of classification of films and videos was prompted by the decision in January 1993 of the Film and Literature Board of Review to release the film Salo with an `R' rating, overturning a decision of the Film Censorship Board to maintain a ban on the film's release of 17 years standing. The Committee's terms of reference include a requirement that it consider whether material which would be classified in the `R' and `X' categories should be permitted on pay TV. The Committee was able to use the consideration of Salo by the classification authorities as a "window" into the operations of the system which has the potential to eventually permit `R' or `X' material onto pay TV.

The Committee's inquiry highlighted a number of systemic flaws in the classification system and its report has recommended the implementation of a number of important remedial measures, particularly in relation to the restructuring of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, which is the umbrella Commonwealth agency housing the Film Censorship Board and the Film and Literature Board of Review. The Committee recognises that the adjudication of community standards will always fall to certain individuals tasked with that role and that there will inevitably be differences of opinion about decisions which arise from such a system. The Committee was concerned, however, about the idiosyncratic nature of the current system, which gives little certainty to the community about what material will or will not be released. The Committee's recommendations are directed at ensuring that the classification system, as far as possible, meets prevailing community standards.

The Standing Committee of Censorship Ministers is scheduled to discuss these issues at its forthcoming meeting in November, when it will examine in detail the proposals of the Law Refom Commission for greater uniformity in film and literature classification as contained in its September 1991 report Censorship Procedure. As with its recommendations in relation to the regulation of video and computer games, the Committee urges the Ministers to agree to the early implementation of the Committee's proposals for reforms in the film and video classification system.

***

1993: Julian McGauran's SALO Petition Number 5

Petition: Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman
Date 14 December, 1993
Database Senate Hansard
Presenter MCGAURAN
Page 4512
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Petition

Film and Literature Board of Review: Chairman

Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) —by leave—I present to the Senate the following petition, which is not in conformity with the standing orders, from 12 citizens requesting that the Chairman of the Film and Literature Board of Review, Mr Evan Williams, be replaced with a more responsible and representative member of the community on the grounds that he has lost touch with community standards:

To the Honourable the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Petitions and petitioning letters received.

***

1994: SALO debated in SA Legislative Council Part 1

SOUTH AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)
First Session of the Forty-Eighth Parliament (1994)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 10 February 1994

SALO

The Hon. ANNE LEVY: I seek leave to make an explanation before directing a question to the Minister for the Arts about advisory committees.

Leave granted.

The Hon. ANNE LEVY: The Hon. Mr Griffin has already begun the process of returning South Australia to the 1950s and 1960s by his banning of the film Salo. This is despite the recommendation from the Commonwealth Film and Literature Board of Review that the previous ban be lifted and the film receive an R classification so that it could be viewed by adults if they chose to see it. I would like to remind members that this film can now be viewed by adults in 16 different countries, including Britain, France and the United States of America. It certainly makes us look ridiculous that our new Government is adopting a ‘big daddy’ approach and limiting our access to a serious if revolting film, so separating us from the rest ofWestern culture by puritanical and bigoted censorship.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. ANNE LEVY: Just as our Festival of Arts is to begin, where we hope to impress other nations as to the depth and value of our cultural pursuits.

The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting:

The Hon. ANNE LEVY: As to arrests on footpaths, I apologised publicly for that, I remind the Minister. I do not want to see the film Salo; I have not seen it and, when it is finally released in Adelaide, as I am sure it will be, I do not intend to pay good money to go and see it. But I express my strongest indignation that the Hon. Trevor Griffin is sitting in judgment about what I and other adult South Australians can view. I do not want him as my moral guardian and I do not want him making aesthetic judgments for me. I would maintain that he is not qualified for either role.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. ANNE LEVY: Mr President, I would like to quote—

The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: I’m not sure what this has to do with advisory committees.

The Hon. ANNE LEVY: If you listen to my explanation, you will find out. I should like to quote from an article written by the Chair of the Commonwealth Film and Literature Review Board as to why the 17-year-old ban on Salo has been lifted for the rest of Australia. EvanWilliams states:

Salo contains scenes of concentrated foulness such as few of us might have imagined, and I doubt if anything would persuade us to watch it again. Yet we reached our decision with surprising ease and a reassuring unanimity.

He further states:

I believe, as I am sure do my colleagues on the board, that the paramount function of censorship is to protect innocent and impressionable young minds from corrupting influence, and that artistic freedom is only one element—though probably the most important—amongst those we are asked to weigh.

I believe there are many films that would be better not made and many more that would be better not seen. I deplore Hollywood’s obsession with violence and depravity, which seems to be getting worse, and was amongst the first to advocate the newly adopted MA (Mature Adult) film classification. . . But I can see no valid reason for preventing adults from seeing Salo.

Further in his article he states:

The Times critic in 1977 called it a ‘forbidding desperate work of art’, whose chief purpose was to produce a powerful cathartic shock, in which the sexuality, the scatology and the horror were in no respect titillating in the manner of pornography, but deliberately painful. He further states: Perhaps our strongest reason for lifting the ban was the conviction that adults, after 17 years, should be allowed to judge the film for themselves.

He says:

Most of us could recall films with scenes of comparable violence and horror. . . (for example) Greenaway’s The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover—

This film was shown for many weeks in Adelaide. Evan William then says:

We had another reason for allowing Salo. Quite simply we thought it a good film.

Elsewhere he said:

Yes, I think adults should be allowed to see it. It was for just such films that the R certificate was introduced more than 20 years ago. . . No-one is likely to be inflamed or titillated by it. Audiences are more likely to be numbed or saddened. Or as Pasolini might have hoped, steeled with disgust and indignation against the horrors of the world.

That is the considered and careful view of those who are charged with considering censorship in this country and who know something about the matter. We all know that this is not the first time that the Hon. Trevor Griffin has dutifully sat through a film and, because he did not like it, has made sure that no-one else could make their own choices as to whether they would see it.

Perhaps it is salutary to remind South Australians that 10 years after the Hon. Trevor Griffin banned Sweet Sweetback Baadaassss Song as likely to deprave and corrupt the populace of South Australia, that same film was shown on television nationally, and I have certainly not noticed any discernible madness or depravity amongst those who chose to view it on national television. I have no doubt whatsoever that we will be able to see Salo at some time. We will catch up with the rest of the world eventually, after a few years of being a laughing stock and being quite unable to be considered seriously in cultural matters. I only hope the reputation of our Festival of Arts does not suffer in the meantime. As the Hon. Trevor Griffin is obviously taking his role as moral guardian and aesthetic critic to such ludicrous lengths, I ask the Minister for the Arts the following questions:

1. Will the Minister appoint the Hon. Trevor Griffin as a member of all advisory committees in the arts, particularly film, so that his approval and judgment can be obtained in all cultural development matters? This would at least ensure that his veto would be established before time, effort and resources are expended in developing artistic product which he might otherwise ban at a later stage?

2. Does the Minister still hold with the peer group assessment principle for artistic matters, despite its obvious rejection by her colleague the Hon. Trevor Griffin in his personal overriding of the judgment of the Commonwealth Film and Literature Review Board? Can the Minister reassure the arts community that peer group assessment will continue in this State?Will she attempt to convince her colleagues that the Hon. Trevor Griffin is not anyone’s artistic peer?

The PRESIDENT: Before the Minister replies to the question, can I point out that there was an awful lot of opinion in that question. It is not necessary; Standing Orders do not require it. I ask that the Hon. Anne Levy note that in regard to her future questions.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: The answer to the first question is, ‘No’. The Hon. Trevor Griffin is fortunately too busy and has a very—

The Hon. Anne Levy: Unfortunately he is too busy?

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: Is fortunately very busy and he also has faith in the people that I would appoint to the peer advisory group in respect of the arts. Traditionally the arts have had an arm’s length principle involved in determining grants. It was a system that was established by the Hon. Murray Hill when I was working with him many years ago. That system is less credible in some respects in recent years, but it will be a system that will continue with integrity in the future.

***

1994: SALO debated in SA Legislative Council Part 2

SOUTH AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)
First Session of the Forty-Eighth Parliament (1994)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 10 February 1994

SALO

The Hon. CAROLINE SCHAEFER: I seek leave to ask the Attorney-General a question about his decision that the film Salo not be shown?

Leave granted.

The Hon. CAROLINE SCHAEFER: Further to the question asked by the Hon. Anne Levy, are you in fact as bigoted as she suggests or do you have valid reasons for your decisions?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I can assure the Hon. Anne Levy that I certainly do not have the time to be on any of the advisory boards and committees that the Minister for the Arts has responsibility for. But I can say that she acts very responsibly in the interests of the whole community in the appointments she is recommending. I have no hesitation in supporting those appointments and in fact I do support some of the artistic activities that occur under her patronage. The Hon. Anne Levy has really opened a hornet’s nest— or one might even suggest Pandora’s Box—about this film Salo because it is not as clear cut as she makes it out to be. She was suggesting that it was an issue of whether there should or should not be censorship. That is not the argument. The argument is not about censorship; it is about what ought to be the cut-off point at which the censorship laws—

The Hon. C.J. Sumner: The argument is about who should do it.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: It is not. The Hon. Anne Levy made the point that she should be able to hear and see what she wishes as an adult.

The Hon. Anne Levy: No, I said do what the Commonwealth—

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: It is not clear-cut at the Commonwealth level either. What happened was that the Film Censorship Board made a decision, by a majority, not to classify it. That was subsequently overturned by the Film and Literature Board of Review. The Film Censorship Board in making its assessment said:

However, the majority of the board was of the opinion that, in combination, the visual and conceptual strength of the depictions of the forcing of sadistic sexual acts upon captive teenagers, [mostly naked] the brutal violence, plus the disturbing acts of depravity, go beyond what is acceptable in terms of current community standards. For the majority, these depictions exceeded any legitimacy as metaphor or allegory that could be claimed on their behalf; the majority deemed these visuals of degeneracy which are presented for their own sake to be indecent.

The Film Censorship Board identifies a whole range of strong depictions, which I suppose one could briefly encapsulate in the following descriptions: explicit rape scenes; branding and burning of breasts and male genitalia; people being forced to eat excreta; scalping; the cutting of a person’s tongue; and the gouging of an eyeball.

The Hon. T.G. Roberts: Sounds like a Liberal Party meeting.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: With respect, I think that is what happened in the Labor Party Legislative Council Party Room recently, because there have been some dramatic changes on that side of the House, so let us not talk about who is doing the gouging and who is cutting the tongues. There was community concern about the film from a wide range of people. Subsequent to the decision I can say that there were members on both sides of the Parliament who expressed appreciation to me for the decision that was taken. I do not intend to set myself up to view every film and every play, or whatever. This was a film of particular interest and concern to a wide range of people. It was highly controversial. Because the responsibility was given to the Attorney- General in the Act I did not turn my back on it. I decided that if I had the responsibility I should act upon it. I did not relish the sort of criticism that the Peter Goers, the PeterWards and other people heaped upon me. No-one in politics wants that. But I decided in the circumstances, without of course knowing what was going to happen—but probably would still have done it anyway—that one ought to set the level at a different level from that which the Film and Literature Board of Review set.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Mr President, it is not a signal that—

The Hon. Anne Levy interjecting:

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: It is not a signal that at the Fringe, the Festival, or film events I, as Attorney-General, will get heavily involved with the blue pencil.

***

1994: SA Liberal Stewart Leggett on SALO

South Australia
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
Tuesday 15 February 1994

Mr LEGGETT (Hanson) A minority group in our society declares that we should be able to read and see whatever we like. I suggest that not one of us is free to do as we like. As a family community—a fact from which there is no escape—we are responsible to one another. The old saying ‘to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves’ should be our goal in life and the basis of our legislation in Parliament. For this reason I would offer my congratulations and support to the Attorney-General for his stand in banning the film Salo. His move had nothing to do with religious piety or preventing so-called liberty, but it is a necessary curtailment on the violated community standards that affect the quality of human relationships. I believe that we must return to some of the fundamentals of the past that form the basic foundation to life together as individual families and the wider family of the community.

***

1994: SALO debated in SA Legislative Council Part 3

SOUTH AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)
First Session of the Forty-Eighth Parliament (1994)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 17 February 1994

The Hon. J.C. IRWIN: I want to reflect for a few minutes on the actions taken by my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Trevor Griffin) in banning the film Salo, an action enraging a predictable few. I do not have a problem with some aspects of censorship. I do have a problem with the notion that all people have the right to do and see what they please. Of course, I support some sort of discipline in our society; otherwise most of us would have no need at all to be sitting in this place legislating on everything. Some might be in this Parliament with the sole intention of defeating every law or change in law presented here. I must say I have never had any evidence that that is so. It is fair to say that everyone in the Parliament today and throughout Parliaments of the world is passing laws which affect our lives in one way or another. In many ways and in many cases they restrict our lives. Again I question and plead: why will not certain people—many of whom have attacked the Hon. Trevor Griffin—who scream from the rooftops when a woman is raped or a child is molested and/or killed, which is happening more and more every day that passes, ask why this is happening and what we can do to stop it happening? They will most certainly not improve the situation by demanding that a film like Salo must be available for all of us to see. That will not improve the situation. The evidence is mounting against violent and pornographic films. How many more lives have to be lost, ended or ruined before we will take any action?

SNIP

***

1994: SALO debated in SA Legislative Council Part 4

SOUTH AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)
First Session of the Forty-Eighth Parliament (1994)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 24 February 1994

SALO

The Hon. C.J. SUMNER: My question is to the Attorney- General. Did the Classification of Publications Board agree to the banning of the film Salo?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I thought that I made clear at the time the decision was taken on Salo that I invited current members of the Classification of Publications Board to view the film with me. They had no statutory obligation to do so. They were prepared to do so. They viewed it with me and were therefore acting in an advisory capacity and I made the decision.

The Hon. C.J. SUMNER: As a supplementary question, did the members of the Classification of Publications Board who viewed the film Salo with the Attorney-General advise the Attorney-General to ban the film?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I am surprised that the former Attorney-General should be pursuing this issue because out in the community there is wide-ranging support for the decision taken. The former Attorney-General and those who support him are crying into the wind.

The Hon. C.J. Sumner: Answer the question.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I will not answer it. I am not going to tell you because I invited them in in an advisory capacity. They were not obliged legally or in any other way to attend or give advice. I told them when they viewed it with me, that being the basis on which they came in, that I would accept the public responsibility for the decision taken. If the former Attorney-General wants to keep raising the issue, I am happy to debate it at any time because out in the community—

The Hon. C.J. Sumner: Did they advise you—

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I am not going to indicate that, for the reason that I gave you. I said to them when they were invited in that I welcomed them viewing the film with me and giving me their advice but, because by statute I had the responsibility, I would make the decision.

***

1994: Julian "Dork" McGauran's on SALO and the OFLC's new computer

ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT: Program 3--Community affairs: Subprogram 3.3--Office of Film and Literature Classification
Date 24 February, 1994
Committee name ESTIMATES COMMITTEE F
Department ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT Program
Program 3--Community affairs
Sub program Subprogram 3.3--Office of Film and Literature Classification
Page 34
Proof NO
Database Estimates Comm.
Source SENATE

Senator McGAURAN --Could you just explain the use of this new computer? What is it and what is it for?

Mr Reaburn --It is to replace the current system, Senator. The current system is old and starting to fall apart.

Senator McGAURAN --What does it do?

Mr Reaburn --It keeps the OFLC's records--its financial records, its accounting records, its classification records.

Senator McGAURAN --How would it help the decision-making of the Office of Film and Literary Classification--

Mr Reaburn --How would it help?

Senator McGAURAN --In making its classifications?

Senator Bolkus --Can you actually rule questions out for stupidity? I am sorry, you are talking about the Office of Film and Literary Classification.

Senator McGAURAN --That is correct.

Senator Bolkus --And as a unit it has a computer.

Senator McGAURAN --Yes.

Senator Bolkus --And a computer is part of the process. It actually helps run the office.

Senator McGAURAN --Yes, but there are also priorities in expenditure. I have supplementary questions once I establish why you sought that as a priority over obvious other priorities within the office, such as better decision-making in making its classifications.

Senator Bolkus --Mr Chairman, I just do not know that this actually goes to the specifics of the item before us--

Senator McGAURAN --Well, allow some questions to go by and we will see.

Senator VANSTONE --Minister, perhaps if I can help here.

Senator Bolkus --Yes, you might.

Senator VANSTONE --I just think the point that the senator is making is to say you have spent $18,000. The purpose of his question is not concerned with whether you have bought a bucket of carrots, peas or a computer. What he is asking is: what were the priorities that you were not able to proceed with, or that led you to decide that you had to have this rather than something else? All spending decisions have a priority and he simply is asking you: what are the ones just under this that would have missed out? That is all. Actually, there is an assumption there that you actually have some priorities.

CHAIRMAN --The officer is trying to give a response.

Mr Reaburn --The point about it is that the current computer system, which is used for all the sorts of things that you would use a computer system in an office for--particularly in terms of record-keeping and particularly in terms of keeping the classification database, which is the record of classification decisions--is wearing out.

We have been advised by the manufacturer of the equipment that within a certain specified time it will no longer be in a position to maintain that particular old equipment and it has to be replaced. It is a simple, straightforward exercise in replacing equipment within an office with new and updated equipment when it gets old and starts to wear out.

Senator McGAURAN --How will this computer help the board itself in making its decisions towards classification of film making?

Mr Reaburn --Because the computer contains the classification database, it will help the board maintain consistency in its approach to classification decisions.

Senator McGAURAN --And expenditure on the computer is a priority over and above other matters such as those reported in the Senate standing committee which I think were greater priorities in making decisions about classifications. If you are given expenditure, would it not have been better to have taken the priorities set in this Senate committee rather than go out and buy a new computer?

Mr Reaburn --Which priorities, Senator?

Senator McGAURAN --Such as exposing the board to greater community consultation. That costs money. It costs money to broaden your consultation and to make the board more community based. It costs money to expand the consultation process. I think that would have been a--

Mr Reaburn --The board and the other statutory officers are exposed to community consultation and they do it quite extensively, so we are spending money on that particular process--

Senator McGAURAN --Extra money, over and above?

Mr Reaburn --Already.

Senator McGAURAN --Why is it not reported here?

Senator Bolkus --We are talking about supplementary estimates, you dork.

Senator McGAURAN --I know.

Senator Bolkus --Maybe if you had had a computer in your operation back in Melbourne you might still have your hotels. We are talking about the administration of an office. It has been explained to you that it was felt that the computer needed upgrading. I do not really think we can take this much further. I withdraw the word `dork'.

Senator VANSTONE --Mr Chairman, before you make whatever ruling you choose to make, these estimates generally are conducted in a reasonably hospitable atmosphere. There are plenty of remarks made, sometimes quite properly, when people on this side of the table do not conduct themselves in a generally pleasant and courteous manner to people on your side of the table. The remark you just made with respect to the assistance that Senator McGauran and his family may have chosen to make of a computer really sits you with some whom you would normally criticise yourself. It just does not help the pleasant flow of each of us trying to do our work.

Senator McGAURAN --I seek a withdrawal on that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRMAN --I will go back to 3.3.

Senator McGAURAN --Mr Chairman, in the matter of fairness, I would seek a withdrawal of the minister's comment.

CHAIRMAN --I must admit that I did not hear the minister's comment.

Senator McGAURAN --I would ask him to repeat it.

Senator Bolkus --Just to ensure the process continues, I withdraw. There was nothing unparliamentary in what I said, but in order to make Senator McGauran feel better and for the committee and in order that we can continue, I withdraw.

CHAIRMAN --We are back into pleasant mode. Is there anything further on 3.3?

Senator McGAURAN --Yes. Have I been ruled out of order?

CHAIRMAN --No, but I think you got your answer.

Senator McGAURAN --I would say this: from the Senate committee report, the Attorney-General's Department advised the committee that in relation to the movie Salo, where the biggest mistake has been made by this Office of Film and Literature Classification board, basically the board was unaware of its legal obligations--

Senator Bolkus --Mr Chairman, on a point of order, I think we are now very much outside the parameters of additional estimates. We are talking about a specific case, a Senate committee report--

CHAIRMAN --The questioning should really be, `Did the computer need to be replaced or did it not?'. I think you have got your answer.

Senator McGAURAN --Are you ruling me out of order, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRMAN --I am saying what the parameters of the question should be.

Senator McGAURAN --I guess I am just trying to set priorities. If you have got just a certain amount to spend, what should be your priority? A computer--

CHAIRMAN --I think the officers have answered that.

Senator McGAURAN --So I take it the computer was the priority over and above other serious matters within the office of the Film and Literature Board of Review classification where the same amount could be spent.

Mr Reaburn --I would not say that. The OFLC regards a lot of things as being of priority, and at this time the computer is one of them.

Senator McGAURAN --If you are given $18,000, it must be the one, because I see no other additional expenditures.

Mr Reaburn --The reason why there is $18,000 in the additional estimates is that the budget contained a sum of money for the replacement of the computer which had been arrived at as a consequence of negotiations with the Department of Finance in accordance with the normal rules about replacement of equipment like computers. Those negotiations, at the time of the finalisation of the budget, were not quite complete. This particular figure represents the final stage of the negotiations between the OFLC and the Department of Finance. It does not indicate that, in a sudden and surprising sense, the OFLC picked the computer as its only priority for this particular financial year. It reflects the particular workings out of the nature of discussions for the replacement of equipment.

Mr Rose --Perhaps it is fundamental to the way the appropriation process works that--

CHAIRMAN --I am not sure that we need to go into that detail.

***

1994: Julian McGauran's SALO Petition Number 6

Petition: Film and Literature Board
Date 24 March, 1994
Database Senate Hansard
Presenter MCGAURAN
Page 2136
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Petition

Film and Literature Board Senator

McGAURAN (Victoria) —by leave—I present to the Senate the following petition, from 22 citizens, which is not in conformity with the standing orders as it is not in the correct form:

To the Honourable the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

***

1994: Goss v.s, Borbidge and SALO in Queensland

Queensland Legislative Assembly
7523
THURSDAY, 14 APRIL 1994

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Salo—120 Days of Sodom

Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the film Salo—120 Days of Sodom, which starts its Brisbane season today, and I ask: why has his Government permitted, in the Year of the Family, the screening of a film described by the Commonwealth Censor as "wallowing in depravity" and which includes the torture, sexual abuse and assault of children?

Mr W. K. GOSS: The State Government has not permitted the film to be shown, or more particularly to be given an R classification. The State Government agrees with the Commonwealth Censor, who has repeatedly refused to classify this appalling trash. We agree with the Commonwealth Censor that it should not have been classified. Unfortunately an appeal to the Commonwealth Film Board of Review was successful and the Commonwealth Film Board of Review granted this film an R classification. From the descriptions that I have heard of it, it is nothing more or less than appalling trash and we will be calling on the Commonwealth Attorney-General to look at the operation and the composition of the Commonwealth Film Board of Review. While Australia should have national standards when it comes to these matters, we do not want to see this kind of trash. The Leader of the Opposition is giving this film so much free publicity that he is likely to increase its audience substantially, and I appeal to him to stop giving the film free publicity and I urge Queenslanders to stay away in droves. Salo—120 Days of Sodom

Mr BORBIDGE: I direct a further question to the Premier. I refer to his decision to scrap the Queensland Films Board of Review, a body which would have allowed him to stop the screening of a film that the Victorian Crown Prosecutor warned could lead to copy-cat torture crimes of innocent children. I ask: will he now follow the lead of the Western Australian and South Australian Governments and introduce legislation that would allow his Government to ban this film? "Yes" or "No"?

Mr W. K. GOSS: As I said before, Australia should have national standards and the legislation that was passed by this Government back in 1990 or 1991 was designed to try to end the appalling and improper political misuse of that power by the previous Government.

***

1994: SALO debated in SA Legislative Council Part 5

SOUTH AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)
First Session of the Forty-Eighth Parliament (1994)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 21 April 1994

SALO

The Hon. L.H. DAVIS: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney-General a question about Salo.

Leave granted.

The Hon. L.H. DAVIS: Some weeks ago there was criticism of the Liberal Government’s decision to ban the viewing of the film Salo. I have not seen the film, and I do not offer a comment on it. However, I was interested to see that the Australian of Friday 15 April carried a report of some strong remarks made about the film by none other than the Labor Premier of Queensland, Mr Wayne Goss, no doubt a close colleague of the shadow Attorney-General. Mr Goss has called on his Labor colleague, the Federal Attorney-General, Mr Lavarch, to investigate the operations and composition of the Federal Government’s Film and Literature Board of Review, which he said had failed in its duty by allowing the ‘appalling, grotesque trash’ film Salo—120 days of Sodom into Australian cinemas.

Mr Goss said that the Federal censor had repeatedly refused to classify this appalling trash but, unfortunately, an appeal to the Board of Review had been successful. Mr Goss took what I thought was the rather unusual step of appealing directly to Queenslanders not to see the film, which opened in Brisbane late last night. He said:

I don’t believe this sort of appalling trash should be shown. That’s why I think the Commonwealth’s Film Board of Review should get a good going over by the Attorney-General.

Mr Goss’s criticism of the board—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. L.H. DAVIS:Well, you should know what the position is in Queensland; you’re revealing your ignorance if you don’t; I’ll tell you later—was backed up by none other than the Queensland Labor Party’s Deputy Premier,Mr Tom Burns, a veteran Labor member (and obviously a close colleague of the Hon. Anne Levy; she is nodding her head). He said that urgent consideration should be given to appointing persons who reside in Queensland, South Australia, or Western Australia and criticised the gross geographic imbalance of the board.

The Queensland Opposition had also attacked the screening of Salo and it asked why the Government had permitted, in the Year of the Family, the screening of the film which was described by the Federal censor as, ‘wallowing in depravity’ and which included the torture, sexual abuse and assault of children. The Opposition pointed out something that I would have thought the Hon. Anne Levy, as a former Minister for the Arts would know, namely, the fact that the Goss Government ultimately had to accept responsibility for the screening of the film in public cinemas in Queensland, because that Labor Government had scrapped the Queensland Film Board of Review. So, there was no check and balance at that State level.

Does the Attorney-General have any comment on the Queensland Labor Premier’s remarks about Salo, particularly in view of the South Australian Labor Party’s criticism of the Government’s decision to ban the film?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I think my response to Salo was more measured than that of Mr Goss. At least I acknowledged that there were some people who believe the film may have had some artistic merit, particularly in terms of film archival interest. It was, as I recollect, the last film of Pasolini and, from that point of view, to film buffs may have held some special significance.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I did. I was quite measured in my response. It is interesting to note that someone of Labor persuasion (or more than one in Queensland) was less temperate in his description of his reaction to the public exhibition of that film in Queensland. There are two points to note. First, in Queensland, as the Hon. Legh Davis has said, ultimately the responsibility has to be borne by the Goss Government because it abolished its Film Board of Review. The other interesting point that is drawn from the article is that there was a distinct bias in the membership of the Film Board of Review towards the two biggest eastern States, New South Wales and Victoria, with I think some token representation from Tasmania. All that will probably change with a significant restructuring at Federal level, which is being undertaken in consultation with the States.

That is the responsibility of the Federal Attorney-General, but there has been reasonable consultation on membership in relation to the structure being put in place at Federal level. Certainly, I take some comfort from the less temperate remarks of Mr Goss in relation to the way in which he has responded to the public exhibition of that film in that State.

***

1994: WA's P.A. Filing, Liberal MP for Moore on SALO

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) BILL 1994: Second Reading
Date 22 September, 1994
Database House Hansard
Speaker Filing Mr P.A. (MOORE, LP, Opposition)
Page 1395
Proof No
Source House
Stage Second Reading
Type Speech
Context Bill
Main Committee No

Mr FILING (Moore) (12.28 p.m.) —

SNIP

As a society, we have had enough experience by now to know where to draw the line regarding the issues of pornography and violence in relation to books and other hard publications. As far as films are concerned, there is a system in place which offers scrutiny and effective censorship in some areas in the public interest. Occasionally the censor gets it wrong, like in the situation regarding the film Salo, which was reclassified with an R rating on appeal after being refused classification on its release in 1984. This was a film of such depravity and debauchery that it is difficult to imagine the depiction of its litany of inhuman acts of violence and degradation. The film should have been completely banned in this country. The fact that such a film is available for viewing under any circumstances is a reflection of the inadequacies of the current classification system. But that is another matter entirely.

At least the film was the subject of some scrutiny and comment. It was a physical item which could be viewed by a group of people charged with protecting the community from that type of material.

SNIP

***

1994: NSW Liberal Senator John Tierney on SALO

ADJOURNMENT: Office of Film and Literature Classification
Date 30 November, 1994
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Tierney Sen J.W. (LP, NSW, Opposition)
Page 3609
Proof No Source Senate
Type Speech Context Adjournment

Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales) (7.37 p.m.) —I rise tonight to continue remarks on the censorship matters that I was speaking about earlier today. I mentioned earlier that we have an excellent classification system that has been in operation since the early 1970s and we have had recent moves to create a proper federal legislative framework. The whole aim of this system is to balance the rights of adults to see and hear what they wish and to protect children.

However, over the last 20 years, there has been growing concern about the way in which this system has been operated. There is a widespread feeling that some of the decisions of the OFLC and the film review board do not properly reflect the wishes of the community. I think this perhaps came out best in an example last year with the classification of the film Salo. Salo would have to be one of the most revolting films ever made. It has been banned in most countries of the world, and it was banned in Australia until last year. Seventeen years ago it was first submitted, and every time it has been submitted since the OFLC has banned it. Its recent decision last year to ban it was overturned by the film review board, and it was at that time that our committee on community standards became increasingly worried about why this sort of thing was happening.

One of the main reasons is that the people who are on the boards of these various censorship bodies are not, despite the claims of the Chief Censor, in any way representative of the community. The annual report that has just come out lists the people and their occupations. Let us see what people think about how representative this is.

The board consists of John Dickie, who was previously a journalist. The Deputy Chief Censor taught drama and media. The Senior Censor, Andree Wright, was a freelance writer. Peter Mackay worked with an adolescent support group—a little out of the mould of the others. Sarah Morton, however, was a freelance journalist. Sally Stockbridge was a senior tutor, lecturer in film and related studies. Douglas Stewart was a senior lecturer in media studies. Elizabeth Alexander was a public relations officer with the Film Finance Corporation. Jennifer Rae was a senior teacher in Intensive English College. Robert Hellmers was a specialist school counsellor, and Gareth Griffith was a lecturer in legal studies.

This is the body of so-called representative people that have been making decisions for the community in this matter. We have had the chief censor and his group claim before us on a number of occasions that their body is representative, but the annual report just laid down gives the lie to that. I raise this matter because the structure of the board has recently undergone review, and the number of members are to be increased from 10 to 20. That is most welcome. But given that the chief censor claimed that the board was previously representative, what will we get this time—more film critics? Basically, of the 11 people I read out, nine people were either lecturers in journalism or journalists of some particular description.

I submit that that is one of the reasons why some of the decisions of this board and the whole direction of censorship in this country have been out of kilter with community attitudes. It was, therefore, the right move by the community standards committee to suggest a reform of the process to get much better community input. We suggested at the time of our video games report that the whole organisation be restructured, that the chief censor become the chief executive officer of the organisation, that a more representative community board be appointed with membership of only three years, that the deputy chief censor be selected from that number and that there be a wide-ranging group representing the community to review the decisions of that board where there is conflict between the Office of Film and Literature Classification and the Film and Literature Board of Review. The government rejected those recommendations at that time.

In the committee's recent report on the classification bill, we have renewed such recommendations. I emphasise tonight the need for the government to do that because it is only through proper community representation that we will get the correct decisions made by this board. If we do not do that, we will continually find problems in the system. Our select committee was set up in 1991 for about three months to do a task and has now been running for four years. The problems are there because of the wrong structure. If we get the structure right, we will not have to keep setting up committees. I recommend very strongly to the Senate that we make such a change.

The other change that needs to be made, and this relates particularly to what will happen to this classification bill from this point on, is that there needs to be a lot more scrutiny of the whole process by the elected parliament. This report actually lists the guidelines under which the film review board and the Office of Film and Literature Classification work for the different censorship codes. Who makes up those guidelines? They come from the board. How is it scrutinised? It comes in the form of an appendix at the back of an annual report. There is no proper legislative scrutiny. There are no regulations to go through the regulations and ordinances committee.

We very strongly recommended to the minister in our report—we are not amending the legislation to do this—that, if there are any changes to the guidelines on the censorship matters, those changed guidelines lie on the table of the state and federal parliaments so that there is some scrutiny in the process. It is hoped in this way that the excellent system of scrutiny that we have in this country, the system that is set up under the Office of Film and Literature Classification which is taken worldwide to be a leader in the field, will be refined in the ways that I have indicated so that these matters properly reflect the true attitudes of the community and not just a vested interest group.

***

1994: WA's P.A. Filing, Liberal MP for Moore Questions the AG

Question on Notice: Salo: 120 Days of Sodom
Date 06 December, 1994
Database House Hansard
Questioner Filing Mr P.A. (MOORE, LP, Opposition)
Responder Lavarch The Hon M.H. (MOORE, ALP)
Page 4073
Proof No
Question_no 1352
Source House
Type Question on Notice
Main Committee No

Salo: 120 Days of Sodom (Question No. 1352)

Mr Filing asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 August 1994:

Has his attention been drawn to the availability in Australia of an `R' rated film entitled Salo: 120 days of Sodom; if so, (a) does the film depict graphic images of sodomy, urolagnia, coprophagy, suicide, scalping, paedophilia and other acts of depravity,(b) did the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards (i) describe the film as a catalogue of horror, outrageous, disgusting and wallowing in depravity, horrific imagery and inhuman sadistic sexuality, and (ii) find sensational exploitative shocking perversion, strong impact of revulsion and disgust at the cruelty, inhumanity and hedonism in the film and (c) will he immediately ban the film in the interests of the community; if not, why not.

Mr Lavarch —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

(a) I understand that, with the exception of paedophilia, the film contains depictions of the type described in the question. In relation to the issue of paedophilia, the past Chairman of the Film and Literature Board of Review adopted the position that the actors employed in the film were young adults and that, if child abuse or child pornography were depicted in the film, the Review Board would have `refused' the film.

(b) I am advised that the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards described the film in strongly disapproving terms.

(c) The Film Censorship Board refused registration to Salo on 18 December 1992 because it was considered indecent under Regulation 13(1)(a) of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations. It was a majority decision with 7 voting for `refuse' and four for an `R' classification.

The Film and Literature Board of Review, on appeal on 13 January 1993, directed that Salo be registered for importation under the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and that it be classified as `R'—for restricted exhibition subject to the condition that advertising matter prepared for the film by Premium Films, the applicant, be submitted to the Review Board for approval. The Review Board also directed that the consumer advice—`DISTURBING ADULT CONCEPTS AND HIGH LEVEL VIOLENCE AND SEX' appear in advertising for the film.

The Review Board said in its decision that:

The film is generally considered to be a metaphor for fascism and oppression and a critique of capitalist exploitation.

Salo presents us with the most stringent test to date of the basic principle that adults in a free society should be able to see what they wish.

. . . we agreed that its depictions, while frequently shocking, were integral to the filmmaker's purposes, and therefore not gratuitous; nor were they in anyway erotic or titillating.

The film has been classified `R'—for restricted exhibition which means that it may be exhibited to persons 18 years of age and over. It has not been classified for sale or hire.

While it is possible for some States Attorneys-General to intervene in the classification process and vary the classification of Salo for their jurisdiction, it is not, I am advised, possible for the Commonwealth Attorney-General to do the same.

This is because the Film and Literature Board of Review's decision to classify Salo as `R' (for restricted exhibition) is made under State legislation. The State law confers the power to classify, on appeal, to the Review Board and, in the cases of Western Australia and South Australia, the power to intervene, as has occurred, to the responsible State Minister.

Under the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, the power to prevent importation, ceased to apply once the Review Board directed that the film be registered for importation and it was released from the control of Customs.

The Commonwealth Attorney-General cannot intervene in the Review Board's decision regarding `Salo'.

***

1995: NSW Liberal Senator John Tierney on SALO Part 2

COMMITTEES: Community Standards Committee: Report
Date 09 February, 1995
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Tierney Sen J.W. (LP, NSW, Opposition)
Page 906
Proof No
Source Senate
Stage Report
Type Speech
Context Committee

Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales) (7.02 p.m.) —

SNIP

To give an example of two films that showed the range of problems, there is a delightful movie that has an R classification called World According to Garp. It has an R classification but the reasons for the R are reasonably subtle and you would probably be reasonably comfortable with most teenagers and children watching it. On the other hand, the horrific movie Salo that has been banned around the world and has been banned in Australia for 17 years finally slipped through the Film Review Board and is now available with an R classification. Admittedly, it has some restrictions but we are finding increasingly that those restrictions are broken. I am reasonably confident that this material will end up on pay TV some day. What are people to make of it as they both have an R classification?

SNIP

***

1995: Brian Harradine on SALO's R18+

COMMITTEES: Community Standards Committee: Report
Date 09 February, 1995
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Harradine Sen B. (IND, TAS, Opposition)
Page 908
Proof No
Source Senate
Stage Report
Type Speech
Context Committee

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (7.16 p.m.) —

SNIP

Let me go to the question of violence. According to the OFLC, graphic, realistic and bloody violence is allowed, but not if it is brought upon to an extent that invites vicarious pleasure from the viewer. That, of course, is to be a subjective judgment by the OFLC. I saw the film Salo. Salo has an R classification. In the part of our report entitled Video and computer games and classification issues which dealt with classification issues, we indicated briefly what Salo was all about.

SNIP

ADJOURNMENT: Report of Community Standards Committee
Date 09 February, 1995
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Harradine Sen B. (IND, TAS, Opposition)
Page 909
Proof No
Source Senate
Type Speech
Context Adjournment

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (7.20 p.m.) —As I was saying, we described Salo as depicting sexual degradation and torture by four high-ranking functionaries of a group of young prisoners. They were teenagers of both sexes who were rounded up by the fascist authorities during the closing stages of the Second World War. The degrading and offensive acts range from perverted sexual practices, such as urolagnia and coprophilia, through to brutal violence and murder.

I saw that film in a theatre as part of my duties. I must say that I have seen numerous R and X classified films and videos. I looked at that film with one half of my mind on the actual classification guidelines and the other half on the screen. At the same time I was attempting to assess the technical merit of the film. In my view, that film clearly should not have received an R classification. To its credit, the OFLC did not give it an R classification, but the Film and Literature Board of Review did. Therefore, the themes and depictions contained in that film can be included in the R classification.

When we asked a representative of the Film and Literature Board of Review whether that film would get an R classification if were submitted as a video, the response was that it would probably not receive a classification. In other words, it would be refused classification. That is very interesting. Obviously, that presumably meant that the board saw a difference between an R category that could be shown in the cinemas and an R category that could go into the home environment. How this suggestion makes sense under existing laws is yet to be fully tested.

I have also seen other R-rated films, one of which did include sexual violence. To my mind, it was a serious treatment of the particular issue involved. To my mind, it was appropriately classified R. It appears that the word `extent' used by the OFLC to qualify the R category guidelines depends on the particular interpretation the censor places on it on a particular occasion.

What we are saying is that the classification presently encompasses too broad a range. We have said that the OFLC should undertake a comprehensive overhaul of the R classification to define, with greater precision, the criteria to be used in rating violent, sexually violent, realistic and degrading, demeaning or exploitative sexual material, taking into account its intensity and extensiveness, to ensure its appropriateness for viewing in the home environment—bearing in mind that children, as well as persons of disturbed or immature minds, are inevitably going to view the material.

I have referred to violent material and sexually violent material. We also refer to material that is realistic, degrading and demeaning or exploitative sexual material. There is some R classified material which is not physically violent but is demeaning and degrading. For example, a number of the R classified films have the same theme content and intent as the X classification, save only that they have been taken at a different angle.

Some of these films have themes of sexual harassment involving workplace sexual favours. In my view, they are demeaning and degrading. There are also films in the R category which, whilst not physically violent, could be termed `exploitative sexual material'. That material commodifies and objectifies women, mainly. Rather than treating them as free and responsible initiators of human activities, that sort of material, although non-violent, treats women as sexual commodities to arouse the sexual desires of its target audience. Group sex scenes depicting diverse sexual activities are a feature of much of that material.

SNIP

***

1995: NSW Liberal Senator John Tierney on SALO Part 3

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) BILL 1994: Second Reading
Date 01 March, 1995
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Tierney Sen J.W. (LP, NSW, Opposition) Interjector Senator O'Chee
Page 1209
Proof No
Source Senate Stage
Second Reading
Type Speech
Context Bill

Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales) (6.02 p.m.) —I rise to indicate that the opposition will be supporting the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Bill 1994. The bill proposes to provide the classification of publications, films and computer games for the Australian Capital Territory. When this is through, it will form part of a national system for classification and enforcement of these classifications.

The bill's main purpose is to establish the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board to administer this particular act. Classification decisions are to be made in accordance with the national classification code which is set out in the bill and guidelines to help apply this code. The bill does give effect to community concern about X and R rated material on computer, video and film. Overall, this bill is a triumph, I think, for cooperative federalism on the regulation of material that can harm and disturb.

This country has, I believe, one of the best censorship systems in the world and I think it is regarded that way. It began in the early 1970s and very early on it was set up to balance what are perhaps two conflicting principles; that is, the rights of adults to see material they want to see and obviously the right of children to be protected. The conflict between these principles I believe overall has been resolved in a reasonably satisfactory way in regard to the public exhibition of material, particularly in cinemas, particularly with the application of the R classification.

We have considerable concern about the way in which this material is in the video stores; the way in which that, in turn, has got into the hands of minors, and there is widespread evidence of that; the way it has affected the Aboriginal communities, particularly in the Northern Territory, in very unfortunate ways, and we have had evidence before the community standards committee of that; and the way in which paedophiles have used the material for seduction and the unfortunate effects of that on society. But we now have a national approach and we have seen evidence, particularly over the last two years, of a considerable amount of cooperation between state and federal Attorneys-General in the way in which this act or the whole area of censorship is to be administered in this country.

We have, as a committee on community standards, made a number of recommendations to the government on additional reforms apart from what is here at the moment. I think it is very unfortunate that the government has not taken up those particular reforms and the committee has once again urged that the reforms initially put forward in the computer games area a little over a year ago and now restated in our latest report on film classification be adopted.

Before I outline what those reforms are, I will just give an example of why such reform is needed. A few years ago a film called Salo came into this country. It is a horrific film. It has been banned in most countries; it was banned in Australia 17 years ago. But when it came before the OFLC it was initially, by majority decision, decided not to classify it as R, but the Film Review Board overturned that decision. I think this points to the nub of what is still the problem in the censorship area.

What we have done is set up a system that is not really representative of what the community feels is needed in this area, and we have also taken out some degree of parliamentary scrutiny of the process. In the report of the community standards committee we did recommend that these two things again be put into the legislation initially and, as the government has not done that, we would urge the government to review that decision.

When I first read this bill I was very disappointed to see that the current structure of censorship pretty much stayed the same. What the committee had recommended was that we have a chief censor and a deputy chief censor who are drawn from the community. The person who is currently the chief censor would become the chief executive officer and he would perform a role something like the head of other statutory authorities in terms of administering that particular area but that the actual final decisions as in a chief censor and a deputy chief censor be drawn from a board that is far more widely representative than the one we have currently.

On the record in a number of committee hearings I did ask about the representative nature of the present board. It is a great disappointment to me that public servants involved tried to hide the real situation on a number of occasions. We have a board that is highly unrepresentative. If you look at the occupations of the 10 people involved up until the latest change from 20, they include journalists, film critics, teachers, lecturers in media studies, public servants, school counsellors and a fitter. If you want someone perhaps representative of the community, the fitter was probably the closest you will get out of that group. Unfortunately, when the board was reformed and it was to go to 20 people—

Senator Harradine interjecting—

Senator TIERNEY —I am just about to make that point—when the board was to be made up to 20 people the fitter went but there are still not 20 names. We went through the latest report and the board was only up to 11. Again, it was still the same sort of group. I am sure these people are very learned in these matters relating to film but the question is: do they really reflect community standards? When we asked the Attorneys-General offices and the OFLC questions on this from time to time, they claimed that these people, by their own community interaction, form a group that is reflecting community standards. I think that is drawing a pretty long bow.

What we need to do is set up a wider group, and the committee welcomes the fact that it has gone from 10 to 20. But again, the way in which these people are selected and the types of people who are selected need to be very carefully analysed. They are all very highly academically qualified, but if you had a truly representative cross-section of the community, you would not be using academic qualifications as your first and, I suspect in some ways, only criteria for selection. So we urge that that aspect of the board's work and structure certainly be changed.

The other thing that we have recommended twice in committee reports—which is still being ignored—is that there should be a community group to review what happens with decisions of this reconstituted board. We recommended that any decisions of the board to do with classification at a particular level which were not unanimous be reviewed by this wider community group. The other part of this was that, when there is disagreement between the OFLC and the film review board, this wider community group review the decision of the board.

I think that will put in a mechanism which will solve a lot of the problems that we tend to have in this area. Suddenly, in an area that is fairly dynamic and rapidly changing, something happens—such as the Salo case—and the community gets outraged that this has happened. If these structures had been set up in the first place, those sorts of problems would not have happened. Part of the art of government is getting your structures right so you do not have to constantly set up committees and have inquiries and reviews. If you get the structure right in the first place, you stop that sort of thing.

SNIP

***

1995: Liberal Senator H.G.P Chapman on SALO

CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) BILL 1994: Second Reading
Date 01 March, 1995
Database Senate Hansard
Speaker Chapman Sen H.G.P. (LP, SA, Opposition)
Interjector Senator O'Chee
Page 1212
Proof No
Source Senate
Stage Second Reading
Type Speech
Context Bill

Senator CHAPMAN (South Australia) (6.20 p.m.) —The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Bill, which sets up a national classification code, is a timely reminder of the need for greater public scrutiny of what is considered suitable in the areas of publications, films and computer games which are now available in Australia. A commitment by the government to ensuring that community standards and family values are not usurped by the ever increasing flood of pornography and unacceptable material which appears to be creeping into every facet of life in our society does provide a glimmer of hope for many Australian families.

Recently, we saw the Prime Minister (Mr Keating) declare the need for a family based television channel which would reduce the amount of violence, horror and sex which invades our daily television broadcasts. This same Prime Minister, who in this way wants to be seen to be taking the high moral ground, ironically has allowed his government to ignore the increasingly unacceptable level of violence, sex and horror on the ABC and the SBS.

Senator O'Chee —Hear, hear!

Senator CHAPMAN —I welcome Senator O'Chee's concurrence in that claim. In spite of these problems, a cooperative approach between the states and the Commonwealth on the need for uniform legislation in Australia with regard to the classification of publications, films and computer games has developed. But this conformity seems to be publicly driven.

Last year, this government—in particular, the Attorney-General (Mr Lavarch)—gave carte blanche for the controversial film, Salo, to be shown in Australia. I note that my colleague Senator Tierney a few moments ago also referred to the issue of this film.

On 5 August 1994 I wrote to the federal Attorney-General, following the public outcry and distress about Salo being shown in South Australia after it had received an R(18+) classification by the Commonwealth Film Censorship Board on 18 December 1992. Peter Duncan MP, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General, replied by letter dated 22 September stating:

That decision was appealed to the Film and Literature Board of Review which, on 13 January 1993, upheld the appeal and directed the Censorship Board to register the film with a `For Restricted Exhibition' (R18) classification and the consumer advice `Disturbing Adult Concepts and High Level Violence and Sex'.

That was it. That was how concerned the federal Attorney-General was about the content of this film and the process used to give it an R classification.

In July 1994 a constituent of mine in South Australia raised the issue of the disturbing content contained in the film, Salo. What I understand to be an accurate description of degrading forms of behaviour and acts perpetrated in various scenes in this film which he detailed in his letter are too filthy and too abhorrent to repeat in this place. But there can be absolutely no doubt that such presentations should be banned completely.

When this Labor government allowed this film to be shown in my home state of South Australia, Mr Richard Read, a Victorian crown prosecutor for 14 years who has prosecuted many violent sex criminals, had this to say about it:

Salo is, without exception, the most horrific sexually violent film I have ever seen. Two of the people I was with when I saw it (at the request of the Herald-Sun newspaper) were police officers and both of them had to leave the room as they felt ill. It escapes me how Salo meets any of the statutory guidelines and I agree that we must await the copy-cat torture crimes of innocent children.

That is what Mr Richard Read said about a decision for which this government is responsible. Yet we have the Prime Minister strutting the stage saying that he wants a family television channel. What absolute hypocrisy from this government; what hypocrisy from this foul-mouthed Prime Minister!

Should this legislation be passed, and I hope it will be, I will be among the first to call for this film, Salo, to be banned in Australia under the government's new RC—refused classification—category. The government's proposed RC classification deals directly with publications which:

. . . describe, depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards or morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified; or

described or depicted in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a minor who is, or who appears to be, under 16 (whether the minor is engaged in sexual activity or not); or

promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence—

a very accurate description of the film, Salo. In South Australia we saw the former state Labor government—in this case, Attorney-General Chris Sumner—coming out publicly and actually defending this film, Salo, on the pretext that it served a useful purpose in our community as a measure of protecting our civil liberties. What a joke! I struggle to fathom the former South Australian Labor Attorney-General's thinking in his defence of the film, Salo, and in allowing it to be shown. I was very glad that the new Liberal Attorney-General, Trevor Griffin, overturned that decision when the film was attempted to be shown again later.

This bill will establish the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board. The government in its second reading speech has also indicated that the Law Reform Commission recommendation for community consultation will be ad